Running late with the deadline for your work? Then we are your reliable assistant in paper help.
Get ready to ask for our assistance when you need essays, research or course works, reports, case studies, etc. Our experts have seen it all and are ready to start working on your assignment right away. Go for it!
With over 6 years of experience in the custom writing service, our team of support agents, managers, editors and writers has got a lot of knowledge about everything that may be required by you. Heres what you get for sure when cooperating with us:
Everyone needs some paper help from time to time, because we are only human.
Our prices start at $10 per page for works completed from scratch and from only $6 per page you need to be edited and proofread.
What factors influence the cost of our paper writing services? There are 5 of them:
Youre a lucky client! Why? Because you never pay for everything. You have lots of freebies to go with every single assignment. They are:
Asking for our paper writing help, you dont only pay us. We also pay you! You can receive up to 15% bonuses back and even earn money with our referral program.
We understand that sometimes you may want your deeds to go unknown. That is why we guarantee your complete privacy and security with our paper help writing service. After registration, you receive a unique ID and that is the only thing along with your instructions visible to our experts. Only our support team will see all the details you provide to be able to contact you in case any questions arise and send you a happy birthday discount on your special day.
Our custom writing service is completely ethical and provides busy students with great resources for their assignments. In the modern world when we need to do a lot of things at the same time, its nice to know you can count on someone for back up. We are always here to create the needed sample or perfect your work through editing/proofreading or explain the solutions to any problems you may have. Find out how much more free time you can get with our writing help.
Socialisation primaire et secondaire dissertation abstract objectives of a sales presentation Queensborough Community College, dissertation thesis art Weill Cornell Medical College, University at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo) new yorker the master movie review Erie County. SUNY Community Colleges reportagem da telexfree no fantastico hoje types of audiences in presentations skills Broadway, East zip 10002. United States Military Academy, West Point edit critical thinking on sport plz methodology chapter qualitative dissertations Cortland State University of New York at Cobleskill, Cornell University, Ithaca the physics of light documentary review essays E 32nd Street zip 10016.
Socialisation primaire et secondaire dissertation abstract capstone ventures llc alabama for money kasturirangan report on western ghats malayalam pdf download >> Chairman Weiss: I’d like to call to order the April 21, 2011, meeting of the Johnson County Community College Board of Trustees, and we’ll begin with a Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> And next I’d like to ask Terri Schlicht to provide us our roll call and recognition of visitors. >>Ms. Schlicht: This evening’s visitors include Richard Schroeder, Jerry Novik, Brandon Prustea, Jerry Rich and Linda Childress. >> Chairman Weiss: And I would especially like to recognize in our audience this evening Greg Musil, a Trustee-elect, so congratulations on your victory in the recent election. We’ve come to the first of our petitions and communications section, and this section of the Board agenda is the time for members of the community to provide comments to the Board. Comments are limited to five minutes unless a significant number of people plan to speak. In that instance the chairman may limit a person’s comments to less than five minutes. Presenters may choose to speak at either the first or the second petitions 2 communications section, but not both, and prior to beginning comments we ask that you state name, your address – a city and state. Is there anyone that would like to address the Board at this time? OK, all right, seeing just one, if you’d like to approach the podium there and you will have the full five minutes. >> I’ll only take about two. >> All right, thank you. >> Nancy Carpenter, 14681 Kreiger Road, in Bonner Springs, Kansas. Last semester I was on a sabbatical where I studied the math education outside the United States, and during my readings I learned about a Japanese practice called Lesson Study. I became very enamored of this Lesson Study. Lesson Study casts the faculty and administrators as researchers of student learning actually in the classroom. I loved it so much that I convinced one of my colleagues, although I didn’t have to convince her very hard, to join me in organizing an introductory workshop about Lesson Study for any faculty and administrators who are curious about it. You actually have an invitation in your packets this evening, but I wanted to come by and give you a personal invitation as well. The workshop is next Friday, the 29th, from 3-4:00. It’s in the Hudson auditorium, and any of you are welcome to come and. . . Mr. Musil, you don’t have an invitation. Thank you very much. I hope to see you there. >> Chairman Weiss: Thank you. All right, is there anyone else at this time that would like to address the Board? Now we will close the first petitions and communications section and move to awards and recognition, and Dr. Grove, what do you have for us this evening? 3 >> Dr. Grove: Chair Weiss, we have three staff recognitions and three student recognitions. I want to start off by recognizing Karen Martley, who is our Executive Director of Community and Workforce Development. Karen, would you please stand in order to be recognized. Karen received the Chair Academy’s 2011 International Exemplary Leader Award, and this award recognizes leadership in both academic and administrative areas. She was nominated here at the school by Cathy Misenhelter and she received this award in March at the Dallas meeting of the Chair Academy’s Annual International Conference. So, congratulations on that, Karen. (Applause) Well, it’s that time of year again, and it’s the time of year in order to recognize the JCCC Debate Team which has become an annual event for us, and indeed I think that our Johnson County Community College Debate Team is building a debate dynasty. This year, once again, they won the McClintock Award, which is recognition of the very top community college debate team in the United States. This is the second year in a row that they’ve won it. They’ve been in the top three for the last five years. This year they started out on day one of the debate season No. 1 and never relinquished the spot and won it by a huge margin. Two debaters, Jeremy David and Tyler Kowalewski, received the All-American Debater Award. Now, if you remember from some of my discussions in the past, in the national rankings, the community colleges are put in with the four-years and with the universities here, so only 30 debaters in all college efforts a year win these awards and both debaters from JCCC received this award. The team also was awarded the Public Sphere Award, which recognizes public service and, in particular, they acknowledged the retirement home public debates that the team does give. And in the 4 rankings, and again, these are the rankings with community colleges, four-years and universities, they placed above – and I love reading this list – Boston College, the University of California at Berkeley, Dartmouth College, Georgetown University, University of Michigan, Vanderbilt University and Wake Forest University. So good going there. They are going to be highlighting their skills at what I’m calling an exhibition debate in a couple of weeks, May 4 (put this on your calendars), 7 p.m. in Room 211 of the Carlsen Center, and their topic, Board members, is “Is Public Shame an Appropriate Form of Punishment?” I can’t wait. We want to recognize Terri Easley, associate professor of speech and debate, who is the debate coach, and Justin Stanley, assistant professor of speech and debate, who is the assistant coach. So, congratulations and thank you. (Applause) Excuse me, Terri, would you recognize your debaters before they walk out the door there. I’m sorry. >> Terri Easley: Sure. First we have Jeremy David, who is one of the All- Americans; we have Brandie Shepherd, Emily Umphrey, Tyler Kowalewski in the back, Pat Solecki and Dalton Lawson. >> Dr. Grove: Very good. Thank you again. (Applause) Our third recognition is of our athletic director Carl Heinrich. And Carl has received the George E. Killian Award of Excellence for his service and his volunteerism in the area of two-year college athletics. And what he has volunteered for in the last 11 years which he’s been at the college, the list is huge. I do want to point out, Carl is just coming off a two-year stint as an at-large representative on the executive committee for the 5 National Junior College Athletic Association. He’s also a member of the National Association of College Directors of Athletics and a member of the National Alliance for Two-Year College Athletic Administrators, and he’s held the posts of treasurer, vice president and president for that association. This is Carl’s 11th season at the college, and during his tenure, Johnson County Community College teams have won eight NJCAA championships, 53 NJCAA Regional 6 titles, and 51 Kansas Jayhawk Conference titles. Let’s recognize Carl for his wonderful work. (Applause) And I asked that Carl introduce the three student athletes that we’re recognizing tonight, also. >> Carl Heinrich: Thank you. >> Dr. Calaway: Mr. Chairman, if I might, as Carl’s getting his materials together. The other thing I’d like to mention, with all the great work that’s happened on the court and on the field, Carl’s also been very diligent in his work with our student-athletes, in recognizing the importance of the student side of student-athlete, and Carl’s, through all of his coaches, Coach Conrad and all the others who he has a chance to work with each year, have worked just tirelessly to support our students as students and student-athletes, and I believe, Carl, if not all the athletic teams, nearly all now have grade point averages above 3.0, and those that aren’t there are working hard towards getting there. In some cases that’s a full point higher than where they were just three or four years ago, so, Carl, great work on all ends, both on the field, court, working with your great coaches and athletes. We really appreciate what you’ve done. You truly make the student-athlete a reality here at our college. 6 >> Carl Heinrich: I appreciate that. >> Dr. Calaway: Thank you, sir. >> Carl Heinrich: Part of the problem as you get old, you gotta wear your glasses again, so I’d like to introduce to you the three players this year that earned All-American honors. First is sophomore Taylor Bird, first in line here, and second is Tanchelle Hollingsworth, and Liz Smith. Liz made the WBCA, which is the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association, All-American Team. A little bit about these three – sophomore Taylor Bird was the team’s second-leading rebounder, her score and rebounder averaging 10.4 points and 9.1 rebounds per game. She also ranks second with assists with 136 and led the team in steals with 64. She averaged 12 points a game and 9.8 rebounds a game in the four national tournament games. She also left her mark in JCCC’s all-time leaders chart. Taylor is one of only six players in team history to ever score 700 points and haul down 600 rebounds. Taylor is from Lawrence High School, Lawrence, Kansas. Taylor Bird. (Applause) Tanchelle is from Raytown High School in Raytown, Missouri. Tanchelle averaged 8.2 points per game this year and averaged 4.3 assists per game. She also hit 49 3- pointers this year and scored in double figures 12 times. She finished ranked first in the Jayhawk Conference and 28th nationally in assist average. Tanchelle also ranked fourth in the Jayhawk Conference in assist-to-turnover ratio. Her 159 total assists on the season ranked her eighth on the JCCC season assist chart. Tanchelle averaged 12 points and 2 assists per game at the national tournament, and she finished with 48 total points which ties her for seventh all-time at JCCC. Tanchelle. (Applause) 7 Sophomore Elizabeth Smith is from Blue Valley Northwest High School. She has signed with the University of Missouri. Liz was the leading scorer and rebounder averaging 12.8 points and 9.2 rebounds a game. And she only played, probably averaged, about 15 minutes a game, so it would have been amazing if she would have been in for the 40 minutes. She also reached double figures in rebounding 18 times. Twice during the season Liz was selected Verizon Wireless Jayhawk Conference Player of the Week. Liz averaged 7.8 points and 7 rebounds per game at the national tournament this year. Her freshman year she averaged 21 and 11 rebounds and was selected the All-Tournament Team. Liz is one of only two players in the team history to score over 800 points and pull down 600 rebounds. (Applause) I’d also like to recognize Coach Conrad, in his third year has taken the girls to the national tournament twice, finished fifth this year. Most of the year was ranked No. 1 in the nation, and his girl’s team is half over a 3.2 GPA, team GPA, so he’s doing a great job, getting great girls like these three, so thank you very much. (Applause) >> Dr. Grove: Chair Weiss, that concludes awards and recognitions for this month. >> Chairman Weiss: Thank you. We’ll move to the college lobbyist’s report and Mr. Carter. >> Mr. Carter: Good evening. We’ll start with the good news. We’ve been on a legislative recess for about three weeks, and that means about three weeks of time where we could avoid potentially harmful things happening to us, but that’s about to change as next Wednesday we’ll kick in with what is referred to as the veto or the omnibus session. Legislators will come back and begin their work on April 27. Historically they would 8 return to fix any budget issues that may be left out there hanging, or should the governor have vetoed legislation, that would be their opportunity or the time to attempt any veto overrides. As you heard me say at the beginning, that’s history – we have not see that actual type of activity in the past several years as we find ourselves developing and passing the entire budget in the coming days. That’s what we’ll be doing once folks return on April 27. We haven’t really seen that type of heavy lifting occur yet, and there’s a number of reasons for that. I don’t mean to cast a shadow on the fact that little has happened, although I would say that the governor has only signed 58 bills that have been sent to him. That’s a relatively low number compared to years in the past. That could also be a good news story as well, as there have been several significant pieces of legislation that could set us in a backwards motion that have either been halted or stopped. So, not a lot of legislation has moved through this year. We still have tax policy issues to deal with. Retirement issues through KPERS will continue to be a discussion item clear until the last gavel falls. We have yet to define what the suitability of education looks like, and that carries along with it funding issues and, as I mentioned earlier, the budget, so we are anticipating a somewhat lengthy omnibus and veto session. The budget is of course the big piece that’s out there left hanging. The consensus revenue estimating group met on April 15 to go over the financial projections for the remainder of the year and to take a look into the new fiscal year. As you recall, the state’s fiscal year ends on June 30, so we’re now into the fourth quarter of the state’s fiscal year. $10.2 million is the shortfall that they’ve tabbed for the remaining months of the year. That number jumps to about $21.5 million for next year. And I would say that 9 forecasters were really on target in November when they took a look at the numbers; however, in December, the federal government changed some of the tax rules and the way that the money comes back to our state, and that’s why we’re seeing those numbers drop here at the end of the year, and that makes it really difficult to find $10.2 million. I know it sounds like a small number, but with the type of budget that we’re dealing with, and only two and a half months left in the fiscal year, becomes a bit of a difficult matter to deal with. It puts the governor’s budget recommendation underwater by about $15.4 million, so we’ll be looking at a minimum of that just to get to zero. As you’ll recall, the budget he submitted to the legislature in January had about a $7.5 million ending balance. Again another thing that we haven’t seen in a number of years just because of the state of the economy. I would indicate that forecasters do show an approximate 5% growth in individual income tax revenues, as well as about a 4.5% growth in sales tax collections, and that’s into the coming years. However, when you factor in the issues that we’re dealing with from the December changes from the Feds, that pretty much is a wash, or we find ourselves still scrambling for money. So it does indicate that the economy is improving, which in the end game is good, but it doesn’t lessen the hurt right now. And I think that there are also some other changes as far as tax policy is concerned that the budget director thinks will have a positive impact on the Kansas economy. We’ll see. That’s the policy debate that is still in conference committee as legislators return. Appropriations and Ways and Means Committees met this week to take a look at their respective budgets. Again we’re still not only dealing with the rescission amounts in the fiscal ’11 year, but we’re looking at the major issues of 2012 and ’13 and ’14. We 10 already know that there’s commitments and so we’re looking even that far out on certain items. The committees came back and the House committee met the first couple of days this week, the Senate committee met on Wednesday. They actually met together on Tuesday for conference committee and this kind of falls under the category of “we’re making it up as we go along,” because technically, neither of the committees have pushed out a bill that we can conference on yet. We know what the issues are generally, but we don’t have a formal piece of legislation, and so what usually happens in a conference committee setting, at least at the first meeting, is we go through a reading of the issues that are at stake, and there’s about 250 items that the House and the Senate disagree on. As we were going through that first reading, and what many members in the gallery thought would happen would be we’re just going through and confirming that we know what we’re talking about, the House was making an offer. And so the House made their first-round offer to the Senate conferees, and I would say probably caught some folks offguard. The committee did get back together a little bit later in the afternoon on Tuesday and essentially indicated the Senate would return an offer on Wednesday of next week when they come back. So that is a little bit of how we’re making up the budget as we move down the road. There is no get-out-of-town plan right now and, until we have one of those, we’re going to be here for a while. We’ve not really had our meltdowns that are part of the process that occur. It’s sad to say that those usually have to occur before we can really start getting things done. We’re sort of in that hurry-up-and-wait mode, which is when it becomes dangerous, and we have to be over there covering every single hearing that is 11 occurring because that’s when we start playing the games, because we don’t have anything to do and we’re held hostage here in Topeka is essentially the mindset. In other areas of interest, you’ve no doubt read the headlines in the Kansas City area that have reached across the state of what started out as a dust-up with the Kansas Bioscience Authority. It’s moved into a full-on criminal investigation and the questions are becoming harsher and more difficult at the legislative level as well. CEO Thornton resigned, I believe it was a week and a half ago, and David Vranacar will be the interim president and CEO. Again, probably not news to those of you sitting around the table, as you’re well engaged, but again it has implications in the overall process. I think looking from the view from Topeka, I don’t see any long-term damage occurring – I’m not quite certain that I see short-term damage occurring. There will be a continued look into the organization. It was set up as you’re aware to be a non-political organization, but it’s now becoming somewhat politicized and that would be the only caution that I would throw out there is it truly will work the best and the intent was that it be an apolitical organization. So we’ll see what happens from there on, but again that does have impact on the end-game in the legislative process. The governor announced yesterday a series of economic summits that will be occurring across the state. The first one is Monday in Wichita, related to aviation. There are a number of others that we have an interest in, and not all of the sites are set yet, so it’s my hope in working with some of the folks in the governor’s office that we might be a host site for at least one of the economic summits. We have left Flint Hills, animal health, military intellectual complex, KU Medical Center and Biosciences, renewable 12 energies and service. And so these are all areas that there are going to be public meetings across the state in areas where it makes sense to have those meetings. Under the tab of general legislative issues, there’s still several tax policy issues. I’m not going to detail them out, I’ve talked about them in prior legislative reports – there have been no movement on them is the reason. We will see the conference committee, the tax conference committee meeting when they return on Wednesday, to hammer out their differences on some of these economic incentives. A majority of them are related to business and industry – tax incentives, tax credits – and so they’re all connected to part of the economic growth that the governor would like to see move forward as far as bringing jobs to the state is concerned. KPERS is another elephant in the room that we’ll deal with. Just this afternoon you probably have seen a press release that came out where the governor made a statement that: Look for things to be moving in a 401K direction for employees that are under the KPERS – new employees that would come under KPERS retirement plan. We’ve seen some of that discussion occurring, we’ve talked about caps and contribution levels, but again, there’s been no significant resolution to the KPERS issue as of today. Another bill regarding local elections that I haven’t talked a whole lot about is still out there and it deals with raising the ceiling on some of the contribution levels as well as time and date for elections. There is an effort afoot to include all city and county folks in raising those contribution levels for campaigns and the races that you undertake. Many of them are set at a fairly low level. The attempt is being made at the same time that they are raising the levels of state legislators of both the House and the Senate. So we’ll see if 13 anything comes of that in conference committee. Several conference committee meetings have been called but have been canceled at the last minute, so I just bring that to your attention. The bill is Senate Bill 127, and it’s included on the legislative bill tracker that’s at the back of your report. Finally, Senate Bill 143 is the bill that contains the technical education issues that we’ve been following along throughout the legislative process. It’s the Board’s bill, the Board of Regents’ bill, it’s still ready to move forward, but it’s just caught up in that conference committee process waiting to be approved and then sent to each House for approval before it goes to the governor. In addition to the bill tracker that is at the back of your report, you’ll also find a memo from the governor that was issued this morning, which outlines the first hundred days of the Brownback administration. There’s no intent, no political issue here, I thought it was interesting that it came out today and I thought it was worthy of including in your report just so you can see what the administration’s spin on the first hundred days of the term are. So let me stop there and answer any questions. >> Chairman Weiss: Do we have any questions from the Board? Mr. Mitchelson. >> Mr. Mitchelson: First, Mr. Carter, on Kansas Bioscience Authority, I know next Tuesday, the 26th, is the opening of the K-State Center for Food Safety/Animal Health, and of course KU Med is still hoping to be on track to get clinical trials approved, National Cancer Institute designation. Does this in any way, does the collateral damage 14 from this spill over on either one of those? The efforts in Johnson County and Wyandotte County? >> Mr. Carter: The Bioscience issues? You know, I think the potential exists, but I think the plans that have been put in place are moving forward. I don’t see anything backtracking. I think we’re looking mainly at some issues that have occurred out of state, or some investments that were made out of state, at least that’s, those are some of the charges or the questions that we’ve heard at the legislative level. Beyond that, what has gone in as far as the inquiry from the Johnson County DA has not been made public and so we’re not aware of what some of the revelations that might come out of those proceedings are. But I don’t foresee any immediate damage. >> Mr. Mitchelson: What were the early warning signs that somebody picked up on? How did this become an issue? >> Mr. Carter: You know, we heard little bits here and there. There was an issue coming out of Wichita, perhaps, that I think some legislators were concerned that a project or a program was not given the attention that maybe it deserved, and I think that caused some question for inquiry, and as they began to ask questions, there just kept being more questions and I think that’s what, where we arrived at where we are today. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Thank you. >> Chairman Weiss: Do we have any other questions? Mr. Carter, thank you. We will begin our committee reports and recommendations with the Management Committee and Trustee Dr. Drummond. 15 >> Dr. Drummond: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. If you would turn behind tab 2 in your notebook, on pages 1-21, you’ll find our report. The committee met on April 12 and we’ve attached five recommendations for the Trustees to consider. These are on pages 5-12, and I’ll walk through those with you right now if I could. The first recommendation pertains to voice-over Internet protocol system. This includes voiceover IP system for Olathe Health Education Center and two other data centers on our campus. It represents the first of three phases that will replace the existing Nortel phone and voice mail system. The complete implementation of this initiative will take place over a three-year period based on funding to us. Essentially it’s moving us to the next generation of telephone service, telecommunications services, and we’re trying to get into that century as soon as we possibly can. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, it is the recommendation of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees approve the recommendation of the college administration to approve the proposal from CDW Government LLC, for an amount not to exceed $203,000 for the first phase of voice-over IP system. And I would certainly make that recommendation. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and second, and I do have one question. It shows an estimate of $400,000, and this particular recommendation came in for $203,000 for the first phase. I was a little bit unclear as to whether $203,000 represented a savings from that $400,000, or whether $400,000 represents all the phases. >> I think that just represents, and I can be corrected here, but I think that represents this phase. Is that right, Denise? The market is very good right now and we’re taking 16 advantage of that market and were pleased with the bids we received. I think we sent out 58 RFPs, am I correct on that? >> We sent about (inaudible) and received eight responses. And this is the reflection, I think, of good bargaining and good prices in the market right now. >> OK, well that’s quite a savings, congratulations on that. Any other comments or questions? >> Denise, on the moving to voice-over IP Internet, the anticipated savings or costs, I can’t recall, of not having all the telephone lines and all the bandwidth there, I guess. Was that in that proposal? >> No, it wasn’t, in fact, we’re developing the (inaudible) on that as we speak because they have some (inaudible). >> But we should see a reduction in those, I guess AT&T lines, or expenses from that. Plus the ability to move offices without doing a lot of rewiring, so there are some significant savings in going to the voice-over IP. >> There are a lot of benefits soft costs that are associated with moving this direction, too. >> Thank you. >> Chairman Weiss: All right. Anything else? All those in favor please signify it by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Chairman Weiss: Any opposed? Motion passes, please continue. 17 >> Dr. Drummond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second recommendation we have for you is a very good recommendation in that it indicates that we have met the trustees’ challenge to raise $3 million for the Hospitality and Culinary Academy, and along with that effort, we have gone through the process of an RFP for architectural engineering and food service consulting services for the Hospitality and Culinary Academy. We met with many firms, tried to work our way through the bids and did some negotiating, and with all that I’m happy to bring you this recommendation. It is the recommendation of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the college administration to approve the proposal from DLR Group for architectural engineering and food service consulting services for the Hospitality and Culinary Academy in an amount not to exceed $739,600, plus usual and customary reimbursable expenses, with an agreement subject to approval by college counsel. And I just might add to that that this is a rather sophisticated building to build and it takes some extra consulting services to make sure we get it right the first time. With all that said, I would move that recommendation. >> Second. >> Chairman Weiss: OK, we have both a motion and a second, any discussion? Trustee Cook? >> Question, thank you, Mr. Chair. On the, again, the estimated cost was $750,000. Do we have any idea of what the expected usual and customary reimbursable expenses will be? More specifically, will they keep us under the $750,000? >> I’ll defer that to our staff. 18 >> Mr. Borchers: I don’t believe there are going to be significant costs in this area since most of these consultants are local, so we’ll minimize the travel expenses. >> Thank you. >> So it should stay under $750,000. >> We have room, if my math is correct, about $10,400, so I was just curious whether we’re going to be under that estimate. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Dr. Drummond: We were hoping, if I could just add to that, that we included as many of those fees as possible in the original bid. >> Chairman Weiss: Trustee Mitchelson. >> Mr. Mitchelson: A couple questions: one – even though we authorize tonight, assuming we get an affirmative vote, expenditures for the architectural services, we’re not yet authorizing the completion of the building, is that correct? >> That’s correct. >> Mr. Mitchelson: And secondly, to differentiate themselves, DLR Group, they differentiated themselves I assume by price and by… >> Dr. Drummond: Experience… >> Mr. Mitchelson: Past experience in this area… >> Dr. Drummond: By the quality of their prior projects… >> Mr. Mitchelson: Could you elaborate on that? 19 >> Dr. Drummond: Yes, I can. I think I’d lean on our staff again for that, who dug pretty deeply into this, so, Mitch, if you could address that, or perhaps Dr. Calaway? >> Mr. Borchers: Well, it was based primarily on the makeup of the project team they proposed, the experience they had with similar facilities, not only in higher education but also culinary type facilities. We did reference checks; it was a pretty thorough process and the committee felt that particularly the kitchen consultant who was being proposed as part of the team was really a significant factor in their favor. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Thank you. >> I’d asked Jim Freed that question at the meeting and he referred a couple of buildings that they built around the country that were specifically culinary related, so he thought they stood out among all the others just based on their experience. >> Dr. Drummond: Again, it’s unlike building a traditional classroom building. There’s a lot of technicalities in it that you need outside experts to make sure you do it right. I think our staff did an excellent job in reviewing, selecting and setting some pretty high standards for the people we want to hire. >> Chairman Weiss: Any further discussion? >> I guess if we didn’t move forward on the building, who pays the $750,000, does that come out of the money we’ve raised? >> Yes. >> OK. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. 20 >> Chairman Weiss: Any opposed? Motion passes, please continue. >> Dr. Drummond: Mr. Chairman, the third recommendation we’d like to bring to you is pertaining to blade servers, a new term for me, for sure, and I learned a lot in our meeting from Denise. In brief, the blade servers will provide a solution to support desktop virtualization with up to 500 client connections and improved efficiency, reduced labor costs, extend PC lifecycles, reduce security risk, provide greater flexibility by allowing staff and faculty access to applications and data regardless of location. Of the eight firms we invited to respond, five proposals were received, and funds will be expended from the capital outlay fund. Essentially it’s a move toward the virtualization of our technology, which is yet another generation. It brings with it, I might say again, a lot of efficiencies, a lot more usage and savings, labor savings for sure, and equipment savings. With all that, it is the recommendation of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the college administration to approve the proposal for $132,647.96 from Datalink Corporation for blade servers, and I would certainly move that. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, we have a motion. >> I’ll second that. >> Chairman Weiss: And a second, any discussion? >> Could I ask a question? >> Certainly. >> Mr. Mitchelson: You did a beautiful job and I’m sure it’s technically correct in the way you explained it, but I still don’t understand it, could I ask an expert? 21 >> Did everything he say, was that all right? >> I think he did an excellent job. >> He reads well. >> Blade servers in today’s technology, it used to be that you had a box, a lot of boxes sitting in the data center, and now we’re able to converge our network with our servers, and actually by virtue of just plugging a blade into a network, switch past multiple servers on one blade. So it’s hard to explain. We put in about a hundred servers a year, and through using these blade servers and virtualization which he mentioned, we have actually reduced the numbers of physical servers that we have, these blades, down to 23 and we’ve increased our virtual servers to 400. And this is the technology that we’ve used and now we’re going to start moving that to the desktop. >> How many servers have we been buying? What stock should we sell, I guess? >> Actually it’s a team of companies that work together from the networking to the server to the actual software, and Cisco provides the back end, NetApp is providing the servers, and then we use VMWare to do the virtualization. And they actually have comprised a team from the vendors who work together to make sure all of those work together. I think we’ve made a good choice at the college. >> Thank you. >> I understand everything’s getting smaller, I guess that’s what it amounts to. >> Chairman Weiss: Any further discussion or questions? All right, we have both a motion and second, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. 22 >> Chairman Weiss: Any opposed? Motion passes. Please continue. >> Dr. Drummond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fourth recommendation, responding to comments of Trustee Mitchelson, I do know more about light bulbs and might be able to answer your questions of high technicality about those. This is potentially a two-year contract, initial one-year contract from May 1, 2011, until April 30, 2012. The contract is potentially renewable for another year, dependent on us and them. The bids were received from seven vendors and the detail listed on pages 10-11. With that being said, it is the recommendation of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the college administration to approve the lowest acceptable bids of $20,189.50 from Bulbs N More Inc., $24,587.00 from City Light Products Company, $16,292.00 from French Gerleman, $1,181.00 from Interstate Electrical Supply, $4,803.60 from Wesco Distribution Co., and $5,160.00 from Western Extralite Company, for the establishment of annual contracts for light bulbs and ballasts at a total expenditure not to exceed $72,213.10. And I make this a motion, Mr. Chairman. >> I’ll second that. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, we have both a motion and second. I do have one question on that. Are these low-energy light bulbs and ballasts, as compared to maybe what we’ve been using for the last 50 years? >> Yes, a majority of them are. >> Chairman Weiss: OK. All right, thank you. Any other questions? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. 23 >> Aye. >> Chairman Weiss: Any opposed? Motion passes. Please continue. >> Dr. Drummond: Our last recommendation is for a sponsorship of El Centro’s Second Heart of Opportunity luncheon. El Centro is located in Kansas City, Kansas, and builds strong foundations for community families. They’ve been available for us to work with them to understand better the Hispanic population and work with them. This is a sponsorship for a fundraiser to support their efforts. This request is keeping with the college intention to reduce expenditures from national projects and to focus locally. It is the recommendation of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the college administration to approve $1,000 for El Centro’s Second Annual Heart of Opportunity luncheon, and I would make that motion. >> Second. >> Chairman Weiss: We have a motion and second, any further discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Chairman Weiss: Any opposed? Motion passes. >> Dr. Drummond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to point out, on pages 13-14 you will see the capital acquisitions and improvements list that we go through every month in great detail and get updates on, not just expenditures, projects, whether we’re on schedule or not, and on page 15 and 16, there is more detail from Denise about our network infrastructure and equipment services, and feel free to read that 24 for pleasure tonight when you get home. And that concludes our report, thank you very much. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, thank you. Trustee Sharp, do you have a Learning Quality report for us? >> Ms. Sharp: Sure. Yeah, somewhere. In the Learning Quality Committee this last month, we had a visitor, and I’m not going to attempt to pronounce his name, but a leader from the Achieving the Dream, who was one of the Achieving the Dream coaches, joined us in our meeting and talked about that project, and maybe, Dr. Calaway, can you say his name? >> Dr. Calaway: Tschechtlin. >> Ms. Sharp: Tschechtlin – much easier than it looks, starts with a T for those of you who are interested. During his visit to the community college, he reflected on progress made in the two years the college has been with Achieving the Dream, and discussed next steps in our process. We also spent a lot of time talking about the articulation process for translating courses across institutions. I had no idea that there was such an issue transferring courses from Johnson County Community College to the other Regents institutions. I would expect that at some other schools, but I didn’t expect there to be such a problem with ours. And it’s not necessarily a concern with our coursework, it’s a concern with other institutions, so we’re trying to work with the Board of Regents and our university partners to fix the problem so that our students when they come here and they take courses, they’re transferrable to the rest of their four-year educations should they choose to go that direction. So, those conversations are ongoing, 25 and there were a lot of options discussed in the committee, but it was a really good conversation. Kansas ranks No. 50, now I don’t know who’s No. 1 and what the difference is between No. 1 and No. 50. I didn’t know there was such a huge span of different policies that could be assessed on transferability, but apparently Kansas is really low on the list, so we’re trying to make improvements in that direction. And it was really great, we could have talked about that issue, it became really interesting. You would think that it would be really, really dull, but it became really interesting. As you think about it, oh, it’s not that big of a deal, it’s not that complicated, but it actually is quite complex. And we also talked about some of the new curriculum programs, but the most, the bulk of the meeting was on transferability, articulation is the word I probably should be using, but it was a very good committee and we had no recommendations. >> Chairman Weiss: Thank you. >> Ms. Sharp: Mr. Chairman. >> I’d just like to add, I’m very pleased that Dr. Calaway’s taken a leadership role and bringing this to the attention of everybody in the state. I was knocked over when I heard we were 50th out of 50 states in terms of articulation, and he brought it up again on Monday when we had a meeting at the Edwards Campus of the Advisory Board of KU, and was very upfront in talking to the chancellor about that, and I think it’s going to take a lot of leadership and I think Dr. Calaway can really make an impact in this area, so I’m glad he’s doing it. >> Dr. Calaway: If I may, Mr. Chairman, maybe just some examples of some of the challenges we’re facing. Our state does have a policy related to articulation transfer for 26 our students, and the challenges we face are that there are so many, oh, I would say exceptions to the rule that we end up facing. The reality of life is that our students who come to our college and complete a degree and then transfer to the university system are outperforming junior- and senior-level students who were native students to the university from a grade point average perspective. Pretty regularly we hear questions related to quality of instruction, but from our perspective we know we have doctorial and master’s plus prepared faculty in our classrooms teaching every day, where in many of the universities we see teaching assistants or adjuncts who may not have the credentials and qualifications that our faculty do. The Regents data shows that students from Johnson County Community College are outperforming university students after the first two years, in those junior and senior years. And so Dr. Rhinehart and I have been stirring the pot, is that fair to say, Dr. Rhinehart? >> Dr. Rhinehart: That’s fair to say. >> Dr. Calaway: …over the last couple of days, in particular, and really pushing the agenda related to this, although we’ve been doing it for a while, but we think the opportunity’s right now to try to get this system fixed. And by the way, it’s not just our college where we’re seeing students at the community college level outperforming native students at the university level, it really runs across the gamut. Fifteen out of 19 community colleges in the state have GPA performance levels that are outperforming those of freshmen and sophomores at the university level, so we’re going to continue to work hard. Our faculty work very, very hard to prepare students, and when we see things happening like, Dr. Rhinehart, if I misstate, please help me, but in a Japanese program, a 27 new faculty member joins the university and decides the students should be using the book that that person wrote, and as a result, the message to us is that if we don’t use their book, our students cannot transfer those credits. In an architecture program at K-State, an architecture faculty member decided that while they will accept college Composition 101, they won’t accept our second college composition course. Even though our students are outperforming the students from the university in that discipline. There are no rhymes or reasons to changes or adjustments that are made, just oftentimes, kind of had those issues thrust down our throats without any conversation or discussion, and what we’re proposing is more of a peer-to-peer relationship between our faculties. The things that separate our state system from state systems that are a little more productive or positive for transfer include most particularly that faculty-to-faculty peer relationship, and faculties working together to make decisions related to student learning outcomes and student performance, so we’re going to continue to push that issue very, very hard. We know that our faculty stack up and we know that our students stack up in a very, very fine way, and while there’s a lot of anecdotal comment, the data does not support the universities’ claims related to students across the board in the community college sector, so we’re going to keep pushing that issue very hard. Dr. Rhinehart took a bullet for the team today as she was at a transfer and articulation meeting, representing us while I was with the Collegial Steering and a couple of other meetings today, so we’ll keep pushing. We are truly upsetting the apple cart on this one, with the university folk, and it’s the right thing to do because our students deserve it, and we’re going to keep plodding along, and to be quite frank, we even have faculty amongst our own crew who think it’s not the 28 right thing to do, but certainly our students do, our families do, and our employers think it’s the right thing to do. There is no rhyme or reason for the way that articulation system in this state works, and we think it’s time to get it fixed, so we’re going to keep pushing it. By the way, there are several members of the legislature, including members of our delegation in Johnson County, who believe it’s broken too, and have asked for us to keep pushing the envelope, but if in fact the Regents and the Regent universities don’t want to get it fixed, I think the legislature will fix it. And we’re all better off if we fix it ourselves, so I think we need to find the solutions to that. Maybe just one other point to describe some of the things, other things that have happened in other states. In Florida, for example, there’s a common course numbering system where faculty who work at the community college and university level identify common course outcomes and, English 101 at the community college and English 101 at the university level are common numbers. Common course numbering, common course outlines and the like. And when a student completes that course, it transfers cleanly. Also, there’s a strong effort related to identifying a general education core approach, so we’re going to keep pushing that as well. In our state what happens is we have an articulation agreement, not with the University of Kansas, but with each individual college within the university, so for example at KU, 12 or so articulation agreements, each that are variable based on a decision a faculty member may make tomorrow that’s different than what it was today. At Kansas State, 10 or 11, and we think it’s the right thing to do and we happen to have a lot of influence right now related to how we can help get this changed. By the way, when we sent out our proposals today, that Marilyn carried 29 to our meeting, I received feedback from nearly all of our community college friends saying, “Well said…way to go…we’re behind you…we’re not going to put our name on it, but we’ll let you fight the battle,” but I think this might be one where we use our size and certainly reputation to carry the water, but all of the community colleges including KACCT have agreed that they’re going to stand strong with us on this one. >> And I think that, in this room, on this Board of Trustees, and among the Trusteeelect, we’ve got considerable influence with the legislature as well as friends on the Board of Regents, and even though we couldn’t explain the technical details of articulation, we can bring the issue up and say, education is such an important financial matter with our taxpayers anymore, the cost of tuition to the Regent schools is getting so high, this is a big deal for people that are sending their children to school, and to have them to have to repeat a class just because the textbook wasn’t the same textbook, when they’ve got the other credentials, as a taxpayer that really upsets me, and I think it’ll resonate with everybody we’re talking to, and so I hope everybody will be an advocate, and in KACCT, I hope that you continue to play a leadership role and bring it up as well. It’s an important issue for this college to be a leader on, and a natural one for us to do. >> Chairman Weiss: Any other discussion? >> Ms. Sharp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Chairman Weiss: Thank you. All right, Human Resources, Trustee Dr. Cook. >> Dr. Cook: Thank you, Chairman Weiss. I draw your attention to tab 4. The committee met on April 4, and we had four major items of discussion. The first being the employee benefits consulting services. The Board in 2009, on November 19, did 30 establish the benefits consulting agreement with Holmes Murphy and Associates. That first term expires May 31, 2011, and we are suggesting a renewal for the period June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012. I would remind the Board that these fees are included within the amount we pay to BlueCross BlueShield, and the fees are included in the premium that the employees pay for that medical plan. Staff reviewed the contract and it is our recommendation of the Human Resources Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the college administration’s recommendation to approve the renewal of the benefits consulting agreement with Holmes Murphy and Associates Inc., at a total expenditure not to exceed $35,000. And I would make that motion. >> Second. >> Chairman Weiss: I have both a motion and a second, any discussion? >> Yeah, I have a question, probably for Dr. Korb. Tell me exactly, what does Holmes Murphy and Associates do as part of their benefits consulting? >> Dr. Korb: OK, they will assist us if we go out for RFP on any of our benefits, which we have done since we’ve had them, we’ve gone out on everything, and so they help assist us with compiling all the data as it comes back and that kind of thing. They also negotiate our benefit renewal, our medical renewal, so they go through all of that information as far as compiling all the documentation on our utilization, helping us understand that, and then negotiating down, hopefully, the renewal. They assist us in a variety of ways just with general benefit questions, or problems. When we converted over our life insurance last year, there were some major issues in getting all employees converted over to the new life insurance because of people who were out off work, on 31 disability or something at the time, and so we had some major problems there. They worked, they really took that and worked all the way through it. They have a group that works with them to administer the COBRA, so Taben Group works with them, but as a result of our relationship with Holmes Murphy, they do all of the administration for any employees that are on COBRA. So that’s just to mention a few things, there… >> Yeah, my question, I guess, and maybe this is the industry practice, but it just seems strange that we pay our fee to BlueCross BlueShield, and Holmes and Murphy is supposed to give us a recommendation on the best benefit… >> Dr. Korb: I know. >> …provider. Is that, if we had someone other than Holmes and Murphy as our benefit consultant, would we still make that payment to BlueCross BlueShield? >> Dr. Korb: We, most of the… >> Or are they owned by BlueCross BlueShield? >> Dr. Korb: No. Most of the benefit consultants have an arrangement that is very similar to this, and it wouldn’t matter if it was BlueCross, or one of the other major carriers… >> Whoever we selected, we would pay them, and they would pay Holmes and… >> Dr. Korb: They have those same arrangements. The one thing about Holmes Murphy that we did, we liked better than some of the other options, in some cases, what you pay the benefit consultants is actually a percentage of your premium, and we didn’t like that at all because the higher the premium, the higher the… >> Mm-hmm. 32 >> Dr. Korb: OK, with Holmes Murphy, at least, it is a flat amount per participant. So, people are not forced to participate in the plan, and they are paid a flat amount per participant, so at least it’s a little more controlled than being based on the premium. But it’s a weird arrangement. >> Yeah, it just seems that they aren’t, maybe not that independent in their recommendations. Maybe they are, maybe it’s the industry practice, but it just seems a little strange that we pay… >> Dr. Korb: It is, it is, but… >> …BlueCross and BlueShield to pay our… >> Mr. Mitchelson: I think everybody who’s been on the Human Resource Committee has asked that question. >> Dr. Korb: I know. >> Just if I could, Mr. Chairman, there has been some industry questions about this practice for the last several years, and it’s gone under investigation and I think it’s still going under investigation because the kinds of questions that you raised. >> Yes. >> Just looks a little bit, not quite right. >> Chairman Weiss: Trustee Rayl, you had a comment? >> Ms. Rayl: Chair Weiss, I’d just like to add, you know we were, when we first explored Holmes Murphy, we were very skeptical for the same reasons that you’ve pointed out, Chair Stewart, and we discussed it at length, and I was probably more skeptical than most of the people in the room and I remain skeptical of this particular set33 up, but at the same time it’s pretty hard to argue with the success that we’ve seen from Holmes Murphy, so you know, although I remain skeptical of the way they get their compensation, gosh, they’ve done a really good job of negotiating good rates for us, and so it’s pretty hard to argue with success, but I share your concerns about this, what appears to be a conflict of interest, so it’s always kind of something we’re looking at whenever this comes up. >> I guess as a counter and to reinforce, I remind the Board, that we did have an increase of 9/10 of 1%, and I believe that, as I recall, Dr. Korb, we really felt that Holmes Murphy had a lot to do with that discussion. >> They did, they did. >> The system needs fixed, I guess. >> I know. >> And as I recall, we had this discussion a year ago on exactly the same topic. All right, any other discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. >> Dr. Cook: Second item is the flexible spending account administration. Again, in April of 2007, the Board of Trustees approved the establishment of the annual contract with Cafeteria Plan Administrators LLC for initial term of one year, with the option to renew for four years. The proposed renewal is for June 1, 2011, through May 31, 2012, and represents the last of those four one-year renewals. Again, staff reviewed that contract and it is the recommendation of the Human Resources Committee that the Board 34 of Trustees accept the college administration’s recommendation to approve the renewal of the flexible benefits administration contract with Cafeteria Plan Administrators LLC, a total expenditure not to exceed $49,000, and I make that motion. >> Chairman Weiss: We have a motion, do we have a second? >> Second. >> Chairman Weiss: Any discussion on this motion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Chairman Weiss: Any opposed? >> Dr. Cook: Third item is the employee assistance plan administration. The college’s employee assistance plan contract with St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City will expire May 31. Renewal is for a period of June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012. Again, following staff review, it is the recommendation of the Human Resources Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the college administration’s recommendation to approve the renewal of the employee assistance plan administration contract with St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City at a total expenditure not to exceed $37,000, and I make that motion. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, we have a motion, do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, we have two seconds, so that’s good. Any discussion? 35 >> Yeah, a question. I know, do we get numbers, I mean confidential numbers on how much this program is used? >> Dr. Korb: We do. >> Is it used pretty well? >> Dr. Korb: It is, we have moderate usage. It’s not excessive, but we have good usage of the program, and I’ll take this opportunity just to say that I have had some feedback from two people in particular that wanted me to make sure that when I had an opportunity to let the Board know how much they appreciated the fact that we had this program, an individual who lost a spouse, and another individual who had a major family problem, and they came back to me and said just, very specifically, they wanted me to make sure that the Board knew how much it means to have this program. So we don’t have 80% utilization or anything like that, we have more of a moderate usage, but the people who have used the program have found it to be invaluable. >> And how is it advertised? Is it annually, do you put out something when the benefits go out? >> Dr. Korb: We do, and we also make sure that supervisors have that information. We use that information all the time when we have employees that come in HR for different things, we have little cards and magnets and things like that that we give them, but we do try to make sure people are aware that it’s there. >> Dr. Korb, do we provide any comparable service to our students? 36 >> Dr. Korb: Yes, we do. Same, through St. Luke’s, the same thing. It’s on a referral basis. They have to go through a counselor, but if a student needs assistance, we use the same program for them. >> OK, thank you. >> Chairman Weiss: Any other discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. >> Dr. Cook: Final item, Mr. Chair, is the College Policy 428.01, tobacco-free campus. This topic has been discussed among the various committees for the last several months, and I think it was concluded that this policy should come through the Human Resources Committee. A complementary policy for students will be going to the Learning Quality Committee, I understand, at their next meeting. And, it is the recommendation of the Human Resources Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the college administration to approve the amendment to Board Policy 428.01, tobacco-free campus, as shown on the following page of the Board packet. And I would just refer you to that page that references: tobacco use is prohibited in any college building or facility, except in the outdoor designated areas, taking out posted. Although not encouraged, tobacco use is permitted in the individual’s automobile. However, cigarette butts, smokeless tobacco and any other types of tobacco waste must be disposed of inside the vehicle. 37 And then the final piece of that is the violation refers to procedure 428.01, so with that, it is the recommendation of the Human Resources Committee that the, oh, I read that recommendation already, and I make that motion. >> Chairman Weiss: All right we have a motion, do we have a second? >> Second. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, and let me lead off the discussion on this, and perhaps wade into some muddy water here. Dr. Cook, the recommendation states tobacco-free campus, but as I read the policy, it appears to me to say, well, not in the buildings and not close to the doors to the building, but if you’re walking out to the parking lot or something, that’s OK. Am I misreading this policy? >> Dr. Cook: I believe that it references designated areas, or within the automobile. But I certainly would defer to Dr. Korb or Dr. Calaway. >> Chairman Weiss: I believe at one time, perhaps, we were talking about a true tobacco-free campus, meaning any of the grounds of the college. >> Yeah, actually, the tobacco use is allowed within the individual car of the student or the staff member, and we have two designated smoking huts outside the ITC building, which is where BNSF operations are, and those are enclosed, they’re heated and they’re ventilated, and students, staff are allowed to smoke, use tobacco, excuse me, in those two facilities as well. Nowhere else on campus. >> OK. >> And that was an accommodation to Burlington Northern employees they send in to train. 38 >> Precisely. They said a lot of their people come in, and do not have automobiles, so they couldn’t smoke in their car. >> That’s the only place, over by the ITC, that’s allowed, or in the car. >> Or in the automobiles, yes, exactly. >> Do we have spittoons in… >> …ventilation… >> A hundred years ago. >> The police department, you can be fined by the police department. I don’t have that other procedure, what’s the fine going to be for this, do we know yet? Have we set it? >> Dr. Calaway: There will be a warning process, and then a fine and, Dr. Wolfskill, do you know the exact number of what the… >> Dr. Wolfskill: We’ve recommended that it would be the same as the parking, $10. >> Yeah. >> Dr. Calaway: But there would be a warning procedure first, and then a written warning, and then they would be subject to those fines. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, any other…Trustee Sharp? >> Ms. Sharp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a quick question about how this is worded, because the wording doesn’t, if there aren’t any outdoor designated areas, which it doesn’t sound like there are. >> Two, two. >> Ms. Sharp: Except the BNSF is indoor. 39 >> Dr. Calaway: There’s two designated smoking huts that are outside of those facilities, and there’s kind of a plastic entryway where an individual, be it BNSF or a student or an employee could go to, they’re ventilated, they’re heated, cooled, and so they’re… >> Ms. Sharp: But they’re not outdoors. >> Dr. Calaway: …but there are two outdoors. No, they are outdoors. >> Ms. Sharp: They are outdoors. >> Dr. Calaway: They are outdoors. >> They’re just, they’re enclosed. >> But they’re a plastic… >> Three-sided. >> Three sides, kind of. >> This would be similar, maybe, to perhaps, a heated bus stop, waiting area. >> Ms. Sharp: OK. >> Dr. Calaway: Yeah, that’s about what they look like. >> OK. >> Ms. Sharp: OK. >> Dr. Calaway: Except for there’s a ventilation system in there. >> Ms. Sharp: OK. Thank you. >> Chairman Weiss: All right? Any other discussion? All right, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. 40 >> Any opposed? Motion passes. >> Dr. Cook: Two final comments, Mr. Chair, we did discuss exit interviews and also then had an executive session to discuss personnel matters of nonelected personnel. And that concludes our report. >> Chairman Weiss: All right. >> Question, I’m sorry. When does that tobacco policy go into effect? >> August 1. >> August 1, OK, thank you. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, next we have the president’s recommendations for action and we’ll begin with the treasurer’s report, and again, Trustee Dr. Drummond. >> Dr. Drummond: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You’ll find in your packet on pages 31-34, behind tab 5, the treasurer’s report. On page 31 you’ll find that during the month of March, the college received a tax payment of $1,336,000 – a million dollars plus change. This transaction will not be reflected in the report you have before you, but in next month’s report. As we review the expenditures and operating funds, all seem to be within approved budgetary limits, and revenues are being received as we anticipated, so overall we’re in very, very good shape. The fund balances, again, here on page 41 of your packet. With that being said, it is the recommendation of the college administration that the Board of Trustees approve treasury report for the month of February 2011, subject to audit. And I will move that recommendation. >> Second. >> All right, we have both a motion and a second. Any discussion? Trustee Cook? 41 >> Dr. Cook: Thank you, Chairman Weiss. On page 32, under the general fund, I think I know the answer, while it’s not a big item under the investment income, we budget about $3.5 million, we’ve received 2.2% of that to date. I realize we’re just through February, but other than a low rate, is there any reason why we’re that low on what we’ve expected year-to-date? >> Dr. Drummond: I think I know the answer, but I’ll turn to Dr. Calaway…because investment income comes in at certain times. >> Dr. Calaway: That’s true. I would look to Don to give a deeper explanation, but we’ve also reduced down our projection. We weren’t sure how far to reduce it down for this coming year, because you never know where the interest rates might go. But part of it is what Dr. Drummond described. Don? >> Mr. Perkins: (inaudible) The investment rate is very low and the budget number is too high, and that’s about bottom line. We set that earlier before we had some anticipation of it improving, it didn’t, but it’s been very low. >> Dr. Cook: Thank you, that’s what I assumed. >> Dr. Calaway: If I might just add, in addition to that, we’ve tried to work very, very hard to ensure that our investments are in guaranteed investments, and so, while our hope was that it would be a little bit more than we’ve received, and our projection was more than we received, we do recognize that it’s nowhere near what we had hoped, but part of that also has to do with the investments being in a guaranteed, secured environment. 42 >> Mr. Perkins: Absolutely. All of our investments basically are in treasury bills, or CDs, which are secured by (inaudible). >> Through Trustee Mitchelson’s influence this past year, we became very, very conservative, economic times being as they are, and banks going through what banks are going through, we thought we had to be very, very protective of our funds and we’re paying some of the price for that, but they’re guaranteed, and we know they’re going to be there tomorrow. >> Mr. Mitchelson: I think Standard and Poor’s would think we’re stronger than the U.S. government right now. (Laughter) >> Chairman Weiss: Any more discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Chairman Weiss: Any opposed? Motion passes. All right, that brings us to the remainder of the president’s recommendation for action and, Dr. Calaway, I’ll turn it over to you. >> Dr. Calaway: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Under tabs 6 and 7, you will see this month, our clinical affiliate agreements. This is one of those times in the year where, as we start to think about next year’s clinical relationships, we do renew quite a few of our affiliate agreements. And so we have several this month that are included in your packet starting on page 43. We do have faculty who review and meet with our clinical affiliates regularly and then provide these recommendations. This month for your consideration we have affiliate agreements for discipline areas in administration of justice, business 43 office technology, dental hygiene, early childhood education, emergency medical science, health care interpreting, nursing, polysomnography, practical nursing/health occupations and respiratory care. And then also in our continuing education area again, under tab 7, we have affiliate agreements for the health and human service program through workforce and community education. I could read through each and every one if you’d like. >> Chairman Weiss: I don’t think that would be necessary. >> Dr. Calaway: That being said, it’s the recommendation of the college administration that the Board of Trustees authorize the college to enter into agreement with all the agencies included in your packet, for the clinical experiences as indicated for the period of July 1, 2011, though June 30, 2012, and those are subject to the review of college counsel. >> So moved. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, we have a motion. >> Second. >> Chairman Weiss: And a second. I have one question. Regarding the very first one listed there, on the administration of justice with the Bureau of Prisons, are our students at any more than ordinary risk by having an internship at that location? >> Dr. Calaway: I guess that depends on your definition of ordinary risk. There is some risk, obviously, and this is the Leavenworth Bureau of Prisons, but it is a strong internship for the program. There is some risk, the students are protected through our 44 insurance program, but there definitely is some risk, any time you’re dealing with a prison environment. >> Chairman Weiss: OK. Any other discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? All right, motion passes. >> Dr. Calaway: Thank you. Under tab 8 you’ll see my monthly report this month and, while I won’t go through every item, just several issues that I’d just like to bring to your attention. First, on behalf of the college community, our faculty, staff and others, congratulations to Trustee Weiss and Trustee Stewart and Trustee-elect Musil on their Board elections. We thank you for the service you provided, and the service you will provide and congratulate you on your election. As I mentioned earlier and has been discussed as part of the Learning Quality Committee, we have been actively engaged with the transfer and articulation process and we’ll continue to do that. Dr. Rhinehart and I will be forwarding some e-mails to you just so you have an idea of what we’ve been up to of late, over the last couple of days as we’ve tried to push Regents and Regents universities towards a better, deeper place. I’ve been pleased to this year serve on the board for the Kansas City Area Development Council and also this year I’ll be chairing the Higher Education Task Force, which is a group that’s of, actually 18 2-year colleges, 4-year universities, public and private, who are working very hard at developing a more systemic approach to how we provide education and workforce training through each of our institutions across the state 45 line. We’re looking at kind of a one-stop connecting point for all of our colleges and universities through Kansas City Area Development Council and so if there is a business that’s thinking about coming to our community, whether they be on our side of the state line or on the Missouri side, those entities would be able to take a look at the programs and services that we provide and, also, we would be able to work collaboratively, or have other colleges work collaboratively with us to carry training to the best way possible in the region. We think it’s a really great approach and starts to deal with some of the bistate issues that we’ve been reading about in the paper related to economic development, and we think, and all of the universities are very, very actively involved in the process. Karen Martley’s going to be representing us. I’m not sure if Karen’s left yet, but she received an award earlier this evening, but Karen will be representing our college also as our one-stop coordinator, and we’ve kind of described it as each campus identifying a concierge who would be able to work with businesses as a one-stop location for our college, and she would be able to direct the individual or bring together the right people to discuss programs, be they in the credit or non-credit arena. So we’re looking very much forward to how that task force moves forward and we’ll keep the board apprised of progress. There also will be a one-stop higher education website that will be located on the KCADC overarching website, so we’re pleased with how that’s going. Just a reminder, in May we’ll be starting to take a look at my evaluation, so Terri and I’ll be getting some materials out to you somewhere in your board packet, probably next month, related to that, and we can start to think through and plan for that process for the 46 next meeting or possibly the June meeting, however you’d like to plan through that. So we’ll have that in your packet and we’ll start to get after that process. Mr. Chairman, with that I’d be open to any questions you might have. >> Chairman Weiss: I do have one question. I am seeing a motion under tab 6, and I’m also seeing a motion under tab 7. Was your intention to combine both of those? >> Dr. Calaway: Yes, in fact, I didn’t read all of the clinical affiliate agreements through both 6 and 7, so, I combined those into one motion. >> Chairman Weiss: OK, all right, thank you. >> Dr. Calaway: If you like, we can…that was my intention to do that. >> Chairman Weiss: Good, I think we’re good on that, thank you. >> Dr. Calaway: OK. If there would be any questions. If not, that would conclude my report. >> Chairman Weiss: OK, any other questions of Dr. Calaway? All right, I don’t believe we have any old business at this time. Yes, sir. >> Is the college policy on tobacco-free campus now an old business item? I have a question, I had a couple questions. >> Chairman Weiss: Please. >> It seems pretty simple to do this in some ways, but the thought came to me about how are we handling the attendees to the CAC events and the Nerman Museum and the business center – are there going to be signs posted out front, and…we assume we’ll be liberal with our warnings at least on those, so we don’t chase away… 47 >> Dr. Calaway: Absolutely. We’ve had a lot of conversation about that, and that is why we have the provision for warnings and we certainly will be very, very courteous, not only for visitors, but for students and employees as well, as we go along. But, we do have the provision for the warnings, and we’ll be very sensitive to that, and the knowledge that some visitors to campus would not know where we are, so, we’ve had these discussions probably ongoing for over a year, and we’ve worked through a lot of the ways that people might enter our campus, and not be aware of the rules. In many ways, that applies to a host of things, but certainly related to this. >> All right, I apologize for not asking that earlier, but I didn’t want it to go unasked. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Can I ask in conjunction with that – What are the Regents sites doing? Are they similar to us in their policy? >> Dr. Calaway: It kind of varies around the state. I’m not sure if Jerry or Dana could respond directly to that, but we can get you some information if you’d like. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Just here in Johnson County – Edwards Campus and now the new K-State facility and KU Med, do they have similar kind of policies? >> Dr. Calaway: Again, it varies throughout the state, we can get you specifics on what’s going on with each of those nearby locations. >> Dr. Grove: You know, it is interesting. Metropolitan Community Colleges across the state line have adopted a tobacco-free campus policy, and it goes into effect August 1 also. It was totally coincidental. >> Great. 48 >> I’m guessing KU Med probably has, I know Olathe Medical Center has had for over a year a tobacco-free campus, so. >> Dr. Calaway: But specifically to the Innovation site and Edwards, I couldn’t respond to that without checking with them. There are a host of entities around the community that have done that. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, do we have any other unanswered questions? >> Many. >> Chairman Weiss: All right. But apparently none that we’re going to deal with later tonight. All right, I believe we don’t have any other new business at this time unless a board member would like to bring something forward. In that case we move to reports from board liaisons and we’ll begin with the Student Senate and Mr. Parish – Paris, I’m sorry. >> Mr. Paris: It’s all right. Good evening, everyone, first item of business which I would like to update the Board of Trustees on concerning Student Senate was Dollars for Scholars. Vice President John Coler, with that being in his job description as vice president, who oversees Dollars for Scholars on the end of Student Senate did very well this past week in raising money on behalf of Student Senate, on behalf of our community and also our campus, which the money which we raise will go straightforward to our international and out-of-state student scholarship, which is awarded each year from the Student Senate to students here at the college. The Scholarship Committee as a matter of fact did reach a decision on two students to award two scholarships of $1150, two for the semester, and those, I cannot of course give out those names, but I did want to give you 49 the allocation and also to give you knowledge that we did reach a decision on that this past Friday as well. Treasurer Emir Caglayan has completed work on the Japanese Relief Fund that will…he did an organizational fundraiser this past week, which his mother was so gracious in her cooking a whole bunch of Brazilian food which we sold to members of our campus for $5 a plate, and all the proceeds will go to Japan and also the Red Cross to aid them in that relief. Campus Craze will be here May 4, we’re very excited about that. It’s a story that goes along with it, why the Student Senate executive board is so very excited about it. JCCC student Denise Williams came in earlier this week and asked for our help to help raise funds for a family that she knows – the Shutt family. The family had experienced tragedy this past Saturday, as many of you may know, as they were involved in a two-car accident on K-10 near Eudora. Now one of the children in the accident, Courtlyn Shutt, who is 2, suffered a broken back and is expected to recover, but her brother, Cainan, who was 5, was fatally killed in the accident. Now the family has asked for us to help out with any costs with medical expenses and also with the funeral, so, of course, when we are asked to do anything on behalf of our community and also behalf of our school, we are more than happy to step in and help out. Student Senate executive board on May 4 at Campus Craze will have a fundraiser that will all go, and all the proceeds will go towards the Shutt family and helping them. Now the fundraiser is one which Dr. Calaway has tried to talk me out of in many ways, but I am determined to carry on through with it. Each Student Senate executive board member will, for one dollar, be hit in the face with a 50 pie. Now, for two dollars you can hit us with a big pie. I’m betting my money that I’ll probably get two dollars worth on a whole bunch of big pies as opposed to the smaller pies, but it is all for a very good cause and we are more than happy to help out in any way that we possibly can. I did ask Dr. Calaway to come and throw a pie in my face from one president to another. Unfortunately he said that he would not, but he would be more than happy to donate to the cause, so since I can’t get Dr. Calaway, I’m looking for Dr. Day to be there, and I know that he’d be more than happy to do that. >> Dr. Calaway: It seemed wrong to… >> Mr. Paris: Well, you know, anything for a good cause I guess we could take a good hit here and there. Also, Senate tabling is a new initiative which has been started by the Student Senate. It’s our way to further connect ourselves with the student body. Student Senators every Tuesday and Friday are out in the Commons area at Senate tables, listening and having many of the Student Senate, or student body, come up to talk to us about many issues and problems that they are seeing here at the campus. We’ve experienced a lot of different issues including the tuition increase. Also, with a lot of the food that is served in the cafeteria, and some different aspects of the smoking policy and also parking. Now a lot of these issues we are talking with them one-on-one, in separate meetings or also at our town hall meetings. Our next town hall is next Wednesday, April 27, at noon in RC 101. We have invited Jay Glatz to come and speak to us about a lot of the things that are going on in the food services and he’d be more than happy to answer most of those questions for those students who have posed those inquiries. 51 Last but not least, in case none of you have heard, the election results are posted for next year’s executive board. Vice President for next year will be Erick Mbembati, Treasurer Gina Galanou, Secretary Hector Ochoa and Parliamentarian Amir Abbaszadeh was re-elected to a second term. For President, I was also seen in that re-election. Upon hearing about my election, I told someone that I was, that I’d been re-elected, 62% of the vote, and she said that the school and the students must have been crazy to have reelected me President, and as I tell everyone, you can always count on my grandmother for moral support, but I am very excited and happy to be back at work for next year, and I know that just as we did many great things with this year’s executive board, we will continue that next year as well. So, thank you. Yes, sir? >> As usual, Mr. Paris, you gave an outstanding report. >> Mr. Paris: Thank you. >> But, I’m very disappointed that you aren’t wearing the cowboy hat that you modeled in the auction catalog. >> Mr. Paris: Well, you know, I thought I had more important things to ask you. I mean I’m sure I have to come to the Board of Trustees to ask about some land for a presidential library, and some other things for the second term, so next time I’ll wear the hat and maybe we can discuss that as well. Thank you very much. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, and Mr. Paris, I’d also like to congratulate you on your re-election, a win at… >> Mr. Paris: Thank you. 52 >> Chairman Weiss: …62%, and I hesitate to add that you significantly outpolled the trustees (inaudible)… >> Mr. Paris: I worked harder to get the vote. >> Chairman Weiss: I’m not sure if that means you’re doing a better job than we are or not, but congratulations on your win. >> Mr. Paris: Depends on the day of the week that you ask them, so thank you very much, I appreciate that. >> Chairman Weiss: Thank you. All right, we move to the Kansas Association of Community College Trustees report and, Trustee Mitchelson. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I’ve been touting a trip to Fort Scott for several months and now the venue’s been changed, so the KACCT quarterly meeting will be held on Friday the 10th of June and Saturday the 11th at Kansas City Kansas Community College, so much closer for those who would like to attend, and it really is worthwhile, and I encourage everybody to try to get it on your calendar. So you’ll get more detail from Terri and from me before it happens, but again it’s June 10th, June 11th, Kansas City Kansas Community College. It should be very well attended and we should have a good turnout there. There will be, I think they’re going to set up golf on Friday as well, but I haven’t heard the details of that. That’s my report. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, thank you. I was prepared to drive down to Fort Scott, but I guess… >> Mr. Mitchelson: Wish you could. 53 >> Chairman Weiss: …Kansas City, Kansas, is even better, thank you. All right, that moves us to the Johnson County Research Triangle report, and again, Trustee Mitchelson. >> Mr. Mitchelson: The Triangle’s next meeting if those of you who would like to attend, it’s an open meeting, will be next Monday the 25th at 8 a.m. and that meeting will be held at the Edwards Campus. Dr. Calaway and Ed Eilert were present for a presentation by JCERT to the advisory board of the Edwards Campus earlier this week and that meeting with the chancellor that I talked about. The Triangle Authority is receiving less money than originally budgeted, but it’s gradually picking up as sales tax receipts in Johnson County improve, and the money is all being passed on to the three university recipients. We’ve really taken out all the money we need for the general administration of the Authority, and so every dollar is being passed on now to one of the three, all three of the university recipients. I’ve mentioned also there’s going to be a grand opening the following day at the Olathe K-State campus. They’ll have an open house out there, and I’m not sure the hours of that, does anybody else? >> Dr. Cook: One o’clock… >> Mr. Mitchelson: One o’clock. >> Dr. Cook: …is the ribbon cutting, and the open house goes ’til seven. >> Mr. Mitchelson: OK, so from one to seven, thank you very much, Trustee Cook. You can attend the K-State campus, it’s supposed to be just an absolutely fabulous building, and learn a bit more about animal health and food safety and what K-State’s 54 doing in our community. That’s at the intersection of Highway K-7 and College Boulevard on the northeast corner. >> Excuse me, what’s the date again? >> Mr. Mitchelson: Tuesday the 26th of April. Next Tuesday. >> Thank you. >> Chairman Weiss: And I’d like to take this opportunity to say that Trustee Mitchelson decided to retire from the Board, which is why he did not run this time, and your leadership on the KACCT board and JCERT board will be sorely missed by this college. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Thank you. >> Chairman Weiss: So we greatly appreciate your efforts in that during these past few years. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Thank you. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, that moves us to Foundation report, and Trustee Sharp. >> Ms. Sharp: I believe that Trustee Rayl is taking that today. >> Chairman Weiss: All right. >> Ms. Rayl: As a matter of fact, I am, thank you, Trustee Sharp. As Mr. Paris mentioned, we had the privilege of attending the Dollars for Scholars event this past Friday, and I and many other folks here in the room were there, it was a wonderful event, and it was very obvious from the huge amount of things that we had to bid on that there was a tremendous amount of work that went in upfront to solicit those donations and it 55 was a tremendous success. And I just want to throw out some numbers. There have been 21 teams of students, faculty and staff working on soliciting items for the auction since February, and in total there were about 150 people who were involved in that effort, all on a voluntary basis. And I want to particularly recognize Jenni Meyer, Alicia Mitchelson and Mary Martha Carrico of the Foundation board. They’ve served on the steering committee for several years and certainly we appreciate their good efforts. There were over 450 attendees. For those of you who were there, you got to witness the wonderful efforts of our auctioneer, Mr. Phil, and I’m going to mispronounce his name, but I’m going to go with Detrixhe. I have no idea how to pronounce it, but we’ll call that close. He did an excellent job, he kept things moving, and certainly there were times when it appeared to me as if things had stalled, and he was able to keep things moving and maximize our ability to do our fundraising. I’m told that the accounting’s not yet complete, but we’re hoping for somewhere in the neighborhood of about $35,000. Thanks to all the folks who pitched in, and the folks who donated, and our sponsors, and so it was a wonderful effort, it was a great event, and I’m already looking forward to next year. And that concludes my report. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, and will you be giving the Collegial Steering Committee report, or will you be swapping with Trustee Sharp? >> Ms. Rayl: Yeah, actually, in a continuing effort, Chairman Weiss, to keep you confused, I’m going to defer to Trustee Cook for that report. >> Chairman Weiss: Oh, all right. 56 >> Dr. Cook: Thank you, Trustee Rayl, we did meet this afternoon earlier, had three items and very lively discussion on all three. The first dealt with the ongoing discussion of the terminal degree credential, which really deals with those folks that have a master of fine arts degree. And the issue really centers around where there isn’t a specialist or doctorate opportunity, what’s a fair compensation at the end of the line, so to speak. Is it a master’s plus 30, is it a master’s plus 45, what’s equivalent? And so lots of study has gone into other institutions. Those in the fine arts tend to be measured on creativity whether that’s work produced as versus a doctorate, a doctoral where it’s research-based and there’s some kind of a writing done. And so it was really interesting to try and come to some agreement. This is not a new discussion item, it’s been part of negotiations for some time. The end result was that we’ll further study what will be equitable and fair in terms of these folks, and as I recall, Dr. Calaway and Dr. Korb, I think we’re talking about six or seven, perhaps, in fine arts, and there might be some in the English Department, so we’re going to get a better handle on how many we’re talking about and how we compensate those folks that don’t have an opportunity to advance their degree work in their respective field. We also had considerable discussion on the Workload Task Force. Jeff Anderson chairs that committee, co-chaired by Jim McWard. And this is really a good example where I believe the committee has done some very, very good work. The task force was authorized to begin their work in October of 2010, and to come back with a report in March of 2011, about a six month period. And the more they discovered and found out about the work that needed to be done, the more work that needed to be done. And a 57 number of the institutions that we have checked with have had a task force on this topic for up to three years and we’ve asked them to take a look at it for six months. And so again, after lots of discussion today, the committee actually has come up with eight recommendations. And I think what we ended up doing is agreeing to the first of those eight recommendations, and that is to extend the committee, make sure the committee also involves the librarians and our counseling team and our teaching faculty, but to give them a little bit more time to make some sense out of how we first of all interpret our existing guidelines on workload, and what decisions we should make going forward with full-time equivalency of students and so on and so forth. So, an ongoing discussion, good discussion today, and I think at this point I would defer to either Dr. Calaway or Dr. Korb if there’s anything else, or Dr. Rhinehart, regarding that discussion, and Jeff might be talking about it in his report as well, but I think the end result was we’ll study a little longer and a little harder about some of those recommendations. >> Dr. Calaway: Some of the things that, thank you, Dr. Cook, some of the issues that we also want to take a hard look at are ways that we assess what a full workload responsibility would be for a full-time faculty member, which includes some public service, institutional service as well as classroom work, or in the case of a counselor or librarian, in their interaction directly with students. For example, how are faculty involved with committee work and how do we assure that all faculty are involved in at least one committee before others are involved in two, three, four, and some cases five or six. So we’re looking at some of those workload issues. The goal behind this task force as you would remember is to help inform this board and also the association and 58 administration as we proceed into negotiations which will probably be kicking off somewhere around the turn of the year. So we do have some time to continue some of this work, but we did want to receive a report this month as was agreed to in the signed letter and the contract. I think the committee’s done really outstanding work. I would just echo Trustee Cook’s comments related to Dean Anderson and Professor McWard, and they’ve just done a great job in leading that group through some discussion and we look forward to how they continue on with more of a long-range approach to some of this effort, so there’s a lot of different factors. Also, quite honestly, one of the things that the group has found is that, and actually I think related to both the degree conversation we had earlier and also this conversation related to workload, is that some of our language in our contract has been in there for some cases 20 or 25 years, but the ways that degrees are awarded and assessed and developed at the graduate level for potential faculty, and also the way that we utilize our faculty in the classroom and outside the classroom, is significantly different. The advent of technology has changed the classroom in so many different ways, and so continue to look at lecture, lab issues, as well as how we utilize committee structure within our institution and involve full-time faculty in a workload kind of process. I think it’s been rich, kind of robust conversation, great results so far, and we’ll continue to study that work and I’m sure Judy may have some other comments, but I’m sure Jeff will also have some comments for us. >> Dr. Cook: What was refreshing about the discussion today, I think we’ve all realized how difficult the budgeting process has been going the past couple of years, and the cuts we’ve had to make, but I really found it refreshing today when the committee 59 looked at, not just cost considerations for this workload discussion, but also studentlearning outcomes, both of them, and I was really impressed with that commitment to say how will this affect student-learning outcomes. Judy, I interrupted you, what did you have to add? >> Dr. Korb: No, you didn’t interrupt me. You did a great job, I don’t have anything to add. >> Dr. Cook: The third item we discussed, and again, it’s a budget related item, is the whole discussion about professor emeritus positions. That again has been a long-term history of arrangement through the contract, and as we have gone through the budgeting process, that was a line item that received careful attention. The end result was that that will receive further study, but I believe that we have, we made the point that that will be reviewed, it will be reviewed through the contract we have with the faculty, but the fact of the matter is that if, unless there is a specific need for an instructor that a professor emeritus may bring forth, we really will be examining how we use that program in 2011 and 2012, because it is a cost item that is receiving attention. And again, Dr. Korb, Dr. Calaway, if you have any additional items about that, or Dr. Drummond sat in the meeting as well, I would defer to the three of you. If not, that concludes the Collegial Steering report. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, thank you. And rather than continue with my confusion on speakers, I will just open this up to the floor at large and see if there’s anybody that would like to give the Faculty Association report. All right, looks like we have a taker. Mr. Anderson. 60 >> Mr. Anderson: That was a nice report by Trustee Cook there, on the Collegial Steering meeting. I actually, I think it was probably the longest one we’ve done in probably a number of years. We had a pretty big agenda tonight. I want to just take a couple seconds here to thank, last year we went into negotiation and we came out with an agreement to do a couple of joint task forces, one on benefits, one on the workload. Both of those are finished. I want to thank Judy Guzzy for the work that she did to help us go forward with the joint task force on benefits. I want to thank Jim McWard for the work he did with this workload piece. I was on a workload committee, probably five, probably like eight or nine years ago, I kind of lose track of time, but it’s probably eight or nine years ago, and it seemed like this thing went on for like three years, and so I knew when we went into this one, there was no way we were going to get it done within one semester, but I think the commitment to looking forward is right on target and it’s going to take time to get this stuff sifted out. The Faculty Association had publicly supported three candidates for this last round of election, and I’m very happy to see all, well, actually, Trustee-elect Musil just left, but I’m happy to see all three of them actually in a position to serve on the board here. We had an opportunity to talk to KNEA, and they sent out 5,400 postcards county-wide to the members, and it was just, I think, a good timing piece for us and for you all that there was school board elections going on at the same time that we had our elections, and so I think as a result of that we had a lot of people in K-12 positions that came out and voted for their respective board members, then also voted for you guys here, so I think it really helped a lot. Just a quick comment to say that we hope that support that we extended is not lost in the coming year. I know 61 we’re going to be in a very difficult spot next year for negotiations, but I’m hoping we can go ahead on that. Just this past Monday I was voted to serve my third term as president of the Faculty Association. I’m getting into kind of uncharted waters here because, historically speaking, most people who are in this role serve two years and then they’re ready to get out of it, and maybe I should be questioned for wanting to stick around for a third term, but, the fact is I really enjoy this role, I take it very seriously, and I consider it to be a great honor to serve in this capacity and so I’m looking forward to a third year working with you guys and working in a very collegial fashion as again we have had here. I was listening earlier to Dick Carter speak to you all here, and I’d like to ask that as he continues to hear updates on what’s happening with KPERS, if he could continue coming back to the board and sharing that news with us. I think that would be great because there’s a lot of people here on campus that are concerned about what’s going on with KPERS, not only faculty, but pretty much every employee here on campus, and so if we could get that coming on a regular basis, I’d like to see that. Also, I’d like to just take a quick moment to thank Dr. Calaway for the work he’s been doing with this, on this articulation front here, and we’ve got a lot of people who are working very hard in classrooms that are teaching various subjects that tend to run into problems as we transfer that work, from school to school, and it’s a difficult role from a counseling perspective, to be able to guide students to where they want to go when we have these articulation holdups. And the idea of us being 50 out of 50 is pretty shameful, I think, in terms of where we stand statewide on this piece here, and so I would 62 encourage you to continue upsetting the apple cart. And I keep thinking of that scene from the movie Tombstone, where Kurt Russell/Wyatt Earp is at the train station, kicking the Clantons out of town and he says, “Tell them I’m coming, and you know what’s coming with me,” so that’s the message I want to see (inaudible). And then finally, Dollars for Scholars, we bought five tables for the event, the Faculty Association did, and we also got 40 people signed up for those tables, so we had a good faculty presence there, I thought, for the event, in addition to other people buying tables and coming too. We’re going to be sending a check to the Foundation for $500 and also support of the event, and so it was a nice time and it was interesting to have it on campus this time too. It was a really nice change of pace, I thought, so that’s all I have. Any questions? >> Chairman Weiss: I’d just like to say that, I don’t want to try to speak for Trustee Stewart, but I just want to say that I appreciate your support, and in spite of the fact that trustees don’t always vote in a manner that the Faculty Association would like to see things go, and given the tough times that we’ll continue to have, there will very likely be more votes like that, but as a trustee we always try to do the things that we believe are best for the college as a whole and with that, we appreciate your support. >> Mr. Stewart: I’ll second that and I’ll pass on that one of your retired faculty members wrote me a very nice letter. It was the nicest letter that I’ve ever received that was basically disagreeing with me, and it started out, it said, “Congratulations on your election. I voted for you, but if there were better candidates, I wouldn’t have.” That’s probably one of the better letters I’ve received. 63 >> Chairman Weiss: And I’d just like to say that I received the same letter, and so the better candidate that John thought who was certainly not me. >> Mr. Anderson: That tells me this person took an equal opportunity approach. >> Chairman Weiss: Yeah, yeah. >> Mr. Stewart: I thought I was the only one, I’m glad to know that. >> Dr. Calaway: That’s good. Mr. Chairman, if I might just, congratulations to Professor Anderson on his election to a third term. We don’t know what you’re thinking either, but congratulations. You’ve done a great job, and I know the Association, all the faculty appreciate the work that you do. Those who are in the Association, and those who choose not to, you really do represent all of them, and we congratulate you on your great work and thank you. Also, I just want to mention, President Paris is looking for people to be pied, and, you know, there’s three of us that kind of hold that title, so I can volunteer you if you like, sir. >> Mr. Anderson: All right, all right, those are fun. Thanks. >> Chairman Weiss: All right. >> Dr. Calaway: Thank you so much, Jeff. >> Chairman Weiss: Thank you. We are at the second petitions and communications section of the Board agenda. This is a time for members of the community to provide comments to the Board. Comments are limited to five minutes unless a significant number of people plan to speak. In that instance, the chair may limit a person’s comments to less than five minutes, and presenters may choose to speak at either the first or second petitions and communications section, but not both, and do we have anyone at 64 this time that would like to address the Board? I’d say now, we will close the petitions and communications section, and move to the consent agenda. The consent agenda is a portion of the agenda where the Board considers a number of motions considered to be routine in nature, to consider them in one motion, and at this time do we have any items on the consent agenda that a Board member would like to pull? >> Mr. Stewart: I’d like to pull Human Resources D and E, addendum, the resources and the addendum, tab 15 and 16. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, we’ll consider those separately. Anything else? I’d like to consider then a motion to approve the consent agenda for tab 9 through tab 14. And do I have a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, we have both a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Chairman Weiss: Any opposed? Motion passes, and let’s consider tab 14 separately. Do you want to consider those separately or together? >> Mr. Stewart: Together. >> Chairman Weiss: Together? All right, we’ll do tabs 14 and 15 together, then? >> Mr. Stewart: 15 and 16. >> Chairman Weiss: I’m sorry, 15 and 16. >> Mr. Stewart: Yeah. 65 >> Chairman Weiss: All right, do we have any discussion? >> Do we need a motion first? >> Chairman Weiss: Do we have a motion? >> I will move both sections 15 and 16. >> Second. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, we have a motion and a second, any discussion? >> Mr. Stewart: I just had a couple questions. >> Chairman Weiss: All right. >> Mr. Stewart: One comment and a question. On page 71 of tab 15, I was just curious if Kathleen Brown was the same Kathleen that has made many visits to this Board? The answer’s no? >> Dr. Korb: The answer is no. >> Mr. Stewart: OK, I was just curious. Second is, I was disappointed, I don’t see Alan, Alan Swarts. Is he not back? >> Dr. Calaway: He’s not here with us. >> Mr. Stewart: Alan has sat through I think almost every Board meeting since I’ve been on the Board, for about seven years, sits in the back, comes to every meeting, and I notice that he’s retiring as of June 30, and I just want to comment that he’s probably attended as many meetings as anybody in this room over the last seven years. Wish him well. >> Dr. Calaway: If I might, Mr. Chairman, to that point. >> Chairman Weiss: Yes, please do. 66 >> Dr. Calaway: Those of us who know Alan, have worked with him for a number of years, have seen him be the consummate campus volunteer – Dollars for Scholars… >> United Way. >> Dr. Calaway: …United Way events, just, you name it, he’s been ultimately involved as a volunteer around campus. He served as our United Way representative a couple of years back, he’s done a great job for us, and we congratulate Alan on his decision. We know he’s going to play a little bit more golf and some other things, and we congratulate him. >> Mr. Stewart: Wish him well in retirement. >> Chairman Weiss: And I might also add that I’ve had some interaction with Peggy Graham and I’m sorry to see that she’ll be retiring as well. >> Dr. Calaway: I know Betty Furtwengler was with us today, and I think she’s already left, but also, just recognition of Betty and Larry, all have just done a great job for us, and wish them well. >> Chairman Weiss: Any other discussion? All right, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Chairman Weiss: Any opposed? Motions tabs 15 and 16 pass. And that brings us to the end of the regular portion of our agenda for today. We are scheduled for a budget workshop immediately following and we will have about a seven-minute recess and we will begin the budget workshop promptly at 7:00 according to this clock over here. So we are in session. 67 ****** >> Chairman Weiss: All right, we are back in session after a brief recess and we will continue with our budget workshop and, Mr. Perkins, I’ll turn it over to you. >> Mr. Perkins: Thank you. Well we began talking about the budget for fiscal year ’12 last summer. We had some focus groups involved with reviewing what was going to be called a PBS process. We met with Management Committee through the year, we had a Board retreat, and we reviewed the budget information all through this period. And we’ve had budget administrators very active, involved with this process. You may recall back in November, the Board approved some budget guidelines. They’re in your packet on page 2. I also show the primary ones on the screen. Unencumbered cash will stay within Board policy, no full-time staffing increases, prioritizing the budget strategically – that’s the PBS process that will be used to establish budget priorities, and I’ll talk about that a little more later. Assessed valuation changed – we estimated to be –3%, and we’ve updated that to be a –1.25%. Enrollment increases are estimated at 2%. We’re experiencing about a little less than that this year. State grant money should stay the same as we received this year. At that time we said we would increase tuition by $5 for in-state, $13 out-of-state. We’ve updated that to $6 and $16 respectively. Capital budgets are always based on need, operating budgets, very much subject to PBS. Capital outlay fund will continue to be at .5 mills. The Statement of Vision, Mission and Values is on the Web of the college, but one thing I would like to talk about quickly, and when we talk about this institutional plan, this PBS, this is a process the college has used to develop a budget for fiscal year ’11-’12. 68 It will help us become efficient and effective as possible in the way we budget and spend the college funds. The objectives are to ensure that our funds are allocated in accordance to the priorities outlined in the Strategic Plan. There are two primary features in PBS. Number 1: We will identify and prioritize the programs and the activities of the college. Number 2: We will justify each line item that is budgeted. That’s the thing that affects especially the operating type costs. You can see on page 6 in the book, Enrollment – credit hours are expected to go up 2%; the graph visually describes that. Assessed valuation will go down 1.25%; you can see very little change here, but it’s certainly a little bit of a downward trend. In the later years, mill levy will stay the same. Now we know that in the fall of the year, well, actually, we’ll get an update on the assessed valuation at the end of June, before I put the legal budget together, but in the fall we’ll get final information on what the mill levy will be, and there are slight adjustments made. But currently we’re expecting it to stay the same, as we have realized this past year. Revenues in the General Fund are divided up pretty much like they have been before, but tuition, frankly, will be a higher percentage, slightly, than it has been in past years. Other income will be significantly lower and, Trustee Cook, you had a good question about the interest a little earlier in the Board meeting. We are certainly budgeting the interest revenue to be much lower, still hoping that something will turn around with interest rates, but realizing that we needed to adjust that significantly. Expenses, excuse me, we can see that the expenses are about 1.3% lower, but that the proportion of our salaries and benefits to capital and current operating are virtually the 69 same as we had last year. These two pages, pages 10 and 11, and this graph, or this visual, may seem unneeded, they’re all zeroes, but they do describe that we are again having no full-time positions added to the budget. But, there are significant changes to the full-time staff budget, and I would like to let Dr. Korb fill us in a little bit on that, on those changes. >> Dr. Korb: We will be making several adjustments and it includes reducing the number of positions, full-time positions, on the staffing table by about 20, I think there’s actually a little bit more than that. That comes as a result of the layoffs, and also, just attrition through positions that were vacant, or have become vacant through retirements or resignations, and we are eliminating them from the staffing table. So there have been several adjustments and we did in fact reduce the number of positions. >> Mr. Perkins: Thank you. >> Dr. Cook: Excuse me, question, is there any idea of how they’ll fill out those 20 by department, or based on credit hours? How will those 20 be accounted for? >> Dr. Korb: OK, the positions have already been identified because they were the ones that were identified through this whole PBS process, and so there actually were two faculty positions that are included in that, but those are the only faculty positions that were there, and those were in areas where there was a retirement and it had already been determined that there wasn’t enough enrollment and that kind of thing to sustain a fulltime position there, and they had already determined that they were going to drop that. >> Dr. Cook: OK, I was thinking 20 faculty but it’s… >> Dr. Korb: No. 70 >> Dr. Cook: The ripping that took place is that 20 we had talked about, with the exception of two faculty. >> Dr. Korb: But those were vacant faculty positions that had already been determined that they wouldn’t be filling those. Then there were 11 positions that were actually ripped with people in them, and the rest of the positions are ones that have come through attrition, by retirements and resignations, and we have just determined that we will hold those positions, or not hold them, that we will actually delete those positions and redistribute workload in order to be able to accommodate not filling the positions. >> Dr. Calaway: If I might, the two faculty positions, just to re-emphasize that, were reduced through, they came as a result of attrition, but our commitment has also been that we’ll be adding positions back into the faculty rank, so maintaining our faculty rank, but going into areas where there are enrollments that justify addition of faculty in those particular areas. All of the reduction in force activities were non-faculty types of positions, so administrative and/or support staff. And we’ve decided what we need to do is rather than just leaving those on the staffing table, not only taking the funds out of the budget, but also reducing those positions out of the staffing table, so we have a more appropriate look at what the budget looks like, and our staffing levels as well, so we’ve also done a pretty significant reduction of part-time staff across the board, really, and we’re running leaner and meaner. Some of the increases in cost are coming as a result of the salary adjustments or benefit costs. >> Dr. Korb: I should also say that there are, in the information you may see, that there were two positions that were added. There’s a transition counselor in the GED 71 program and also an accounting faculty member, and that was all part of this whole process, so they, technically they weren’t really added, they’re positions that were reallocated to that, and those were separate from the 20 that we reduced, so… >> Right. >> Dr. Korb: …we did reallocate a couple of others. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Can I ask a question, I don’t remember our last conversation about assessed valuation. How did we get to, how did we go from three to one and a quarter? I should remember, but I don’t. Did Paul Welcome give us an update, or did we make an adjustment based on… >> The county. >> Mr. Mitchelson: The county gave us an update? >> Mr. Perkins: Well, Paul did give us good information to rely on, but we also went to the county to see what they were using for their projections, which included everything. It included the residential, commercial, the appeals estimates, utilities, personal property, everything. And I’ll talk about that, I can talk about that right now. Next year, based on that, we’ve made our 1.25, it’s a rounded number, they have -1.29, but we’ve made it the same as theirs. Next year, it’s the same as theirs. The outlying years, however, we’re a little bit more conservative. They’re about like 2%, 4%, 4%; we’re 1, 2, 3. So it’s based, next year, very much based on the information from the county in two different offices. 72 >> Mr. Mitchelson: I think that’s really bullish compared to what we’ve been thinking. Do you think it’s too optimistic? >> Mr. Stewart: I think I’m comfortable going with it, because Paul Welcome is actually being a little more optimistic in where he thinks it’s going, to model what the county’s doing at least for next year I think is reasonable. >> Dr. Calaway: The actual number we originally got called for an increase of .8% rather than decline, and that was the number they actually had, but there are plenty of appeals that come through, and other kinds of reductions, and so, while the original number that we received actually was a positive number, we’re still projecting based on some of the appeals that we’ll be somewhere less than that. >> Right. >> Dr. Calaway: And hence the -1.25. We think that’s the conservative way to go and we had a lot of conversations with Paul, but also the budgeting staff at the county, and we think at this stage it would be wise to be prudent and a little more conservative. What we don’t want to do is find ourselves in the middle of the year and having to make a cut. And so we think this gives us all of the necessary planning, best number that we can actually work on right now, so we think that’s the right way to go. >> Mr. Mitchelson: This is counter to the kind of national trend going on, where they’re still looking for another 5-10% at least on the residential side of things. It’s amazing Johnson County can pull this off. >> Mr. Perkins: On page 12… >> Mr. Stewart: Don, Don? 73 >> Mr. Perkins: …oh, I’m sorry. >> Mr. Stewart: If we looked at 10 years ago and 20 years ago, are salaries and benefits, that pie chart, that percentage, do you have an idea what that would be, or was it a smaller percentage of, salaries and benefits, of the pie? >> Mr. Perkins: Not much. We’ve had some years where it was more. Probably it would be a little less now. If the capital expenditures that now live in the Capital Outlay Fund were back in the General Fund. So I would estimate it would be closer to, it would be a little less, 75% maybe. And that’s been pretty consistent over the years. >> Mr. Stewart: But just if we hadn’t have done the 20 position reduction, assuming that percentage number would have gone up a little bit, I don’t know what it would have ended up. >> Mr. Perkins: Good. >> Mr. Stewart: But I think that’s a good number to watch. >> Dr. Calaway: We would’ve been creeping close to 80%, and that’s the number you don’t want to go over. Somewhere between that 75-80%, probably, 76, 77 is a good place to be. This is a very high personnel, service kind of an industry, but if you don’t keep an eye on that number, and you’re right, that’s a number we should really watch, because that’s the one that could jump on you. Because of also the benefits that go along with the personnel costs. >> Dr. Drummond: You move from gold to a red flag very quickly. >> Dr. Calaway: That’s exactly right. >> Dr. Drummond: You begin to approach the 79-81%, you turn red too quick. 74 >> Dr. Calaway: Right. >> Mr. Mitchelson: I think on other revenue side, when I went on the Board, the state grant number was well over 20%. I thought it used to be up to 22, 23, 24. Now we’re down to 15, I don’t know how low we can go. >> It’ll probably go lower. >> Dr. Calaway: I think, my recollection is four years ago this Board meeting was when the Board took the action to hire me, and I was at that meeting, I remember, and Don did his presentation and we were at 21% of our budget was state funding. >> Wow. >> Dr. Calaway: And so, that’s a pretty significant percentage of loss of state dollars, and we’ve also seen that decline in local revenue, too, so there’s some real challenges there. Student numbers… >> Mr. Mitchelson: But, that’s the thing, I think, to have less dependence on the state, I mean, it gives us more control over our destiny. >> Dr. Calaway: We should, we need to keep an eye on that. The other number to watch, of course, is our percent comes from tuition, because that can, there’s a real challenge if that number, that tuition dollar, gets too high, as we see what’s happening at the state. >> Mr. Mitchelson: What do you think is a rule of thumb, is the limit of that as a percentage? >> Dr. Calaway: The universities really did drive their tuition numbers up this year. We’re still a great bargain and we’re still right about in the middle of the Kansas 75 community colleges, but, I think we’re pushing the envelope a little bit this year. But I think we’re consistent, I think you know, the students were aware of where we were going, and at least student government leadership and the like, so it’s certainly a number we need to keep our eye on as well. It’s a very delicate balance. >> Dr. Drummond: We had significant discussion about this in our committee, very concerned about making sure that percentage of tuition stayed reasonable within the range because there’s an inverse relationship between the tuition and enrollment. Have to find that happy medium where, you get the tuition too high and the enrollment is going to go down again, keep it too low then we can’t afford to do some of the things we need to do for student learning, so it’s trying to find that silver bullet, and I’m not sure we know what it is, but I think to go much higher than the 26% puts us in a territory that may come back and haunt us a little bit. >> Mr. Perkins: OK, page 12, and on the screen, you’ll see some information that’s usually interesting from year to year and that’s the average residence tax. >> Chairman Weiss: And Don, according to this slide, would it be fair to say that we are actually cutting taxes? Since we’re actually collecting less per household? We may be only at one and a quarter percent, but. >> Mr. Perkins: It’s exactly what it is, one and a quarter percent, $3. >> Mr. Mitchelson: And that’s your position and you’re sticking to it. >> Chairman Weiss: That’s it, that’s it. I’m sorry this didn’t come before the campaign. >> Mr. Perkins: Another slide, I’m sorry, did I leave that too quick? 76 >> Chairman Weiss: There are some that would argue that we ought to keep the tax burden on the residents the same, and that somehow our budget should be reflected to recapture that $3 difference. And that’s obviously not the Board’s position. >> Dr. Drummond: Mr. Chairman, I think I might add to that, that these are preliminary numbers and it could change… >> It could change in June. >> Dr. Drummond: …final numbers coming in could go either way. >> Chairman Weiss: And I assume that that is what represents a difference on page 7 where the mill levy has fluctuated from 8.749 to 8.768 to, and so forth. >> Mr. Perkins: Right. >> Chairman Weiss: It’s the fine-tuning in there. >> Mr. Perkins: That’s right. >> Chairman Weiss: OK. >> Mr. Perkins: Page 13 reflects impact on students, and this just gives you some comparative information. You can see where we are this year, and other colleges in the state, across the state line, and what the change has been here. These are bits of information you’ve been looking at for some time, but I wanted to reiterate it here. >> Dr. Calaway: Don, does this include the changes in tuition for next year? I know it has ours, but you know, for example, Metropolitan, I thought that they were going up as much as $15, and last year they were at $82. >> Mr. Perkins: I think we’re expecting that all of these colleges will go up… >> Dr. Calaway: Right. 77 >> Mr. Perkins: …in cost next year, so that’s the only comparative information we have, is what is on their websites… >> Dr. Calaway: Right. >> Mr. Perkins: …what is established for right now. >> Mr. Mitchelson: If you look, Don, over on page 23, where it shows the average home value and the average tax, we’ve stayed pretty consistent at 1/10 of 1% all the way across the board, even though a dollar is varied, it got as high as $247 and $236. >> Mr. Perkins: Right. >> Mr. Mitchelson: We’ve done a pretty good job of being consistently, so you could say the tax really hasn’t changed in the percentage of your home. >> Mr. Perkins: Thank you. I’d like to call your attention to just a few more items here, and then, of course, I’m sure you may have many more questions. If you take a look on page 16 in the book, if you take a look at that top section there where we talk about mill levy, not just for next year but all subsequent years, basically, we are leaving it alone. This is per your direction, and our plan at this point. On page 19, I’d like to call your attention to the top of the page, the General Fund, employee benefits portion, and you can see it going down significantly. On a prior page it will show us the actual percentage, but you can see that it is being reduced, approximately 10% from the prior year, this is what the Board has asked to be done, at least 5%, but there are also some effects from the PBS process. Regarding the PBS process, we have reduced benefits significantly, as well as certain salaries and operating and capital. 78 On page 24, which is the last page of the projection model section, right in the middle of the page, where it says Amount Over: Minimum 10%, right in the middle. Follow that row across, I didn’t have any color to put on this, in this particular page, to highlight it, but if you could follow that line across, you could go all the way to the farthest year, 2015/16, you can see that we’re virtually at the 10% budget reserve mark. So what are we doing? We’re spending the reserves down to the prescribed level, but we’re doing it methodically, we’re doing it according to plan. We’re adjusting other budget assumptions and items to help that occur. Now I’m going to jump real quick, and I’m sure we’ll want to come back to some of that information, but if you’ll allow me, I’d like to go to page 41. Another fund, this is the Adult Supplemental Fund, and just to show that while we spend an awful lot of time focusing on the General Fund, as we should, a lot of attention is given to the other funds as well. And the Adult Supplemental Fund is being adjusted based on just trying to, as accurately as possible, project what the activity will be in that fund. You can see that the budget itself is being reduced by about 9, little over 9%. Also, in the back of this book, page 49, we have a page for the Capital Outlay Fund. Now this didn’t used to be in here, because it was a little bit simpler to describe, but now there are some pieces in here that affect this budget that, certainly you’ve been very involved in with some of the conversations, you’re aware of the fact that we have shifted about 3.2 million of equipment and remodeling and building improvements from the General Fund over to here. And they’re reflected here. We also pay out $250,000 for the 79 PEI infrastructure out of this fund. And we also have an amount available for the culinary arts project of 7 million here. So this is the accounting for that fund. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Could I ask a question that I’ve asked before? What is the acid test, or litmus test, we apply to a capital expenditure to determine whether or not it gets taken in the General Fund or it gets moved over to the Capital Fund? Is it arbitrary? >> Mr. Perkins: Yes. >> Mr. Mitchelson: That’s what I thought. That’s how tough that test is. >> Mr. Perkins: We just try to make it as easy to track as possible. Big chunks. So what you’re seeing here is all the remodeling, virtually all the remodeling, all the building improvements, all the replacement capital, equipment, and there may be some other items because we needed to add up to 3.2 million. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Well, there’s about 4 million over in the General Fund, so what is that $4 million over there? What is it generally? >> Mr. Perkins: Well, I want to be sure that I’m… >> Mr. Mitchelson: Well, you had that page there a minute ago. >> Mr. Perkins: About 4 million is coming in in revenue, for the capital outlay, I’m sorry, that’s not what we’re talking about. $4 million expense for capital in the General Fund. I’m going to look on page 20. On page 20 of the booklet, you can see that the General Fund amount for capital is about 3.4. >> Mr. Mitchelson: OK. >> Mr. Perkins: And the detail, how it’s split out, is below. Now there is some remodeling there, but it’s a very specific kind of remodeling. That’s the infrastructure 80 amount that’s used for IS changes, or additions, and that is an amount we leave there because we decided that $3 of tuition was paying for that. So that much needs to stay in the General Fund, it’s related to $3 of tuition. But there are the details. Most of it is other capital. I think most of the, if not all of the ITP, computer type equipment is reflected here, as well. The rest of what’s in the Capital line in the General Fund is debt. And that number is reflected on the next page – 21, at the top. About 2.6 million in debt. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Yeah, I think the hard acid test I was hoping we would have is that if it’s an entirely new project, it’s over in the Capital Fund. It’s in the General Fund if it’s maintenance of an existing capital structure, or service of existing debt. We can’t meet that acid test quite… >> Mr. Perkins: No. >> Mr. Mitchelson: …evenly. >> Mr. Perkins: The only thing I would say is that everything that we budget in Capital, in any fund, is evaluated each and every year, and must stand on its own merits. >> I have a question, back to page 49. >> Mr. Perkins: Yes. >> Future capital project in ’10/’11 was at 6.9 – why did we raise it to 7? I know that we had committed 7, but why was it 6,920,000? >> Mr. Perkins: Well, there was just, frankly, it was a just a reallocation at that time, we had some, there was for instance the, I think part of it may have been the number right above it – the loan. We had a certain amount that we budgeted to, that’s actually a part of 81 a loan that was forgiven, but we had to put it in that, we had to record it. So we made some adjustments there. >> And where would the 3 million private fund show up for the project? >> Mr. Perkins: They’re not in here. >> Dr. Calaway: Those are in the Foundation. >> Mystery source. >> That will all come through the Foundation. >> Dr. Calaway: Right. Those dollars are sitting, they’re actually private contributions that are held in a capital fund in the Foundation budget. >> Mr. Mitchelson: The expenditure we approved tonight for architectural DHL Group, that amount will be charged to the Capital… >> Mr. Perkins: Correct. >> Mr. Mitchelson: …Fund, not to General Fund – Capital Expenditures? >> Mr. Perkins: Correct. >> Dr. Calaway: Unless we get to the place where, Trustee Stewart asked this question, which was, if for some reason we would decide not to do the project, then we would have to make some of those other changes. >> Mr. Perkins: A lot of changes this year. A different process, it’s been a good process. I think the administration who have driven this process, the PBS process, were very wise. It was a good thing to do, even if it was a good year, regarding the economy. So certainly we’ll want to learn from it and use some of the features, if not all of it, at 82 least part of it for subsequent years. There’s a lot of difference, though, this year, in the process. A lot of active involvement at all levels, all the way through. We really didn’t need one new thing, but we’ve got it, so I’m going to tell you about that now. It’s not a big deal, as far as budget goes, no mill levies or anything like that. But you’re very aware of all the activity that’s taken place in Topeka regarding the technology fund that’s being developed. The Post-Secondary Technical Education Fund is what’s proposed in Senate Bill 143, that Mr. Carter mentioned earlier today, earlier this evening. And what we anticipate is that on July 1, we’ll need to, that fund will exist. It won’t mean any new mill levy, it really won’t mean any new anything, as far as budget is concerned, but it will mean that we’ll have to reclassify some of our costs in the General Fund over to that fund, expense and revenue. The legal budget forms haven’t been developed yet, but I’ll have to deal with a change in the legal budget forms this summer. But what I wanted to make sure you were aware of, is that this fund will exist, you’ll see it, and description, and we’ll keep you informed about how we will actually implement the accounting. And we’ll be hearing from the Regents about how we do that, both on the legal budget forms, and on our books. What I expect through the next year is that we will realize most of this accounting, most of these changes, through some reclassification entries at the end of the year. Some of you may recall we used to have a Vocational Fund. And we had the General Fund and the Vocational Fund – the Vocational Fund actually at that time did have a separate mill levy portion. But we have a little bit of a model there to use to help us, help guide us to a method that will be effective, accurate and helpful. The state wants this fund, because they want to be able to track those 83 expenses and be able to have good comparable information. So there’s a change, but our job will just be to make it as transparent and as clear as possible as we go forward. >> Mr. Mitchelson: So we’ll have two pieces of the General Fund – we’ll have the academic portion and the vocational portion, or the academic portion and the technical portion? >> Mr. Perkins: Yes. >> Dr. Calaway: If the Technical Education Fund was fully funded, we would see somewhere in the ballpark of an additional $5 million from the state. Of course that money’s not there, so you’ll probably see the total be somewhere equal to where we are this year. But if it had been fully funded as was proposed through the new funding formula, that was approved by the legislature, if they had then subsequently approved the dollars to fund it, we would have been somewhere closer to 24, 25 million. >> Mr. Mitchelson: My hope is this methodology and thinking gets in place and all ultimately the state recovers its revenues and someday we are the beneficiary. >> Dr. Calaway: Absolutely. The real challenge for us continues to be the hold harmless clause, which we’ve argued significantly against because hold harmless holds those declining harmless, but it doesn’t hold those growing harmless, and we’ve been in the growth camp where other institutions have not, and so as a result, our subsidy per FTE continues to go down while theirs goes up, and there’s no definition of harmless that comes close to that, so there are some real challenges, but eventually we hope we’ll come closer to being funded. That may be a ways off though. 84 If I might, Don, just respond, or maybe provide a little bit of information. Trustee Cook, earlier in the board meeting, asked a question related to our investment income, and on page 18, you will see about 4 or 5 columns down, in the 2010-11 budget, $3.4 million that we were projecting investment revenues, now for this coming year being reduced down to 1.1 – that probably still is a little high, but as you can see we’ve taken about 2.3 million out of that investment projection, and I think Don’s done a great job of trying to do some projections still through the rest of the long-range plan for our budget, but you’ll see that that number is low, and may still be… >> Yes. >> Dr. Calaway: It may still be too much, but much closer to what we think we’ll probably realize. >> Mr. Perkins: Right. >> Well, the other factor there, too, is the reserve is down. >> Mr. Perkins: That’s all I had, unless you had some more questions. >> Chairman Weiss: I have one question. On page 53, and several other pages, there are a number of items listed under housekeeping services. In the event that the College receives a bid that it wants to pursue with outsourcing of housekeeping services, janitorial services, would these items disappear? >> Mr. Perkins: They would, they may disappear, it would depend on the contract language, I think. >> Yeah, exactly. >> OK. 85 >> Dr. Calaway: Some, but probably not all. >> Hope you don’t mean walk off. >> Chairman Weiss: Yes. They would no longer be in the budget. >> Dr. Calaway: They would be available for reallocation. >> Mr. Perkins: Right. Yeah, thanks for bringing that up too, because I guess I haven’t talked about this – the last part of the book is a listing of the capital equipment that’s in the budget, starting on page 51. >> Ms. Sharp: I have a question on the housekeeping stuff as well. Because I couldn’t tell, maybe some of it is duplicative, listed in multiple places, am I reading that right, the same things? >> Mr. Perkins: I’m not, what page? >> Ms. Sharp: For instance, page 53 and page 60… >> Mr. Perkins: OK. >> Ms. Sharp: …both have like, education account 7301. >> Mr. Perkins: Yes. >> Ms. Sharp: There’s different… >> Mr. Perkins: Thank you, you’re absolutely right, it’s in both places. They’re different items. >> Ms. Sharp: OK. >> Mr. Perkins: On page 53, they’re the items we call 4030, under $5,000 apiece. >> Ms. Sharp: OK. 86 >> Mr. Perkins: On page 60, they’re in a group of furniture and equipment that are $5,000 and greater. >> Ms. Sharp: Right. And do we know, I mean I’m going to bring up my espresso machine example again, because I see it in here again this year. >> Mr. Perkins: Mm-hmm. >> Ms. Sharp: Do we know what these are replacing? In some places I see some departments have said, “Replacing similar that were bought in 2004,” but it would be nice to know, and because it seems like we see the same things over and over and over again, and I was trying to go through my filing system, which says a lot for my filing system, and couldn’t find last year’s budget book to compare why a Rainbow or a Kirby vacuum will last 30 years, but we can’t, but we buy an industrial vacuum, the same one every year. With things like that, that… >> Mr. Perkins: Well, I don’t know how many they have, and I don’t what the frequency of replacing them is. I do know, also, that while they may want to budget to make sure they can buy one if they need it, because they think it’s going to break down any time, there’s a possibility that it will continue to work and that means they’ll need to re-budget it in the subsequent year. And that’s what happens with the espresso machines as well. If they don’t have to buy it, if they think they can make it a little bit more, then they will. They’ll maximize the use of any item that they have. It has a direct impact, certainly in Auxiliary Services, on their bottom line. >> Ms. Sharp: Right, but there’s no cost savings there for the College, because they spend that $7,000 elsewhere in the budget. 87 >> Mr. Perkins: Not necessarily, no. >> Ms. Sharp: OK. >> Mr. Perkins: It may very well be in the part of the Capital budget, and there always is some that doesn’t get spent. So in other words, just because it’s here, just because we have the authority to do it if we need to do it and we think we probably will, there’s a possibility we won’t, and we’re not just going to buy it because it’s in the budget. So then you’ll see it again next year because, certainly with the presumption that there’s a reason that they feel the need to replace it, but it just comes in a subsequent year. >> Ms. Sharp: OK. >> Dr. Cook: Back to the housekeeping, and I know you all know this, but I think one thing we need to consider is that, we did this down at Harrisonville when I was superintendent, and one of the reasons we did it was because our equipment was so bad, but the consideration to be made in that whole process, and I think Don’s explained it well, as Dr. Calaway, if the contract includes the vendor will provide the equipment rather than the College own the equipment, that’s where you might realize some cost savings initially, but down the road, 3, 4, 5, X years when you decide to go back to your own system, you will be faced with purchasing all the equipment because you either buy it used from the vendor that was there, or you don’t have any. Doesn’t need to be discussed tonight, but I believe that’s an important consideration when we make that decision. So I don’t think Don, or Jon, you indicated that this cost may go away, I think 88 Don, you said, “Will this go away?” Depends on the decision we make. And that will then drive what our cost is down the road if we decide one way or the other. >> Chairman Weiss: One of the things that drove me crazy when I was the IT manager for a suburb whose name I won’t mention, was City Council members who nitpicked every budget item, down to how many staplers we bought and how many pens and pencils and things, but having said that, I do have a question. On page 73, Trustee Sharp is drawn to the espresso machines, and I’m just wondering why, what we do with four used motorcycles? >> Ms. Sharp: That’s the class, isn’t it, the motorcycle class? >> Dr. Calaway: Motorcycle riding. >> Chairman Weiss: That’s the motorcycle riding class? >> Dr. Calaway: Yes. >> Mr. Perkins: What’s more, this is, if you look at the top of the page where it says Motorcycle Driver Safety Fund? This is a separate fund, also. >> Chairman Weiss: Yes, OK. >> Mr. Perkins: But, yeah, they’ve had a very successful program so far. >> Chairman Weiss: And I’m aware of that. I guess what threw me off was where it said HR, and I just didn’t know whether Judy was using it as… >> Her getaway vehicle. >> Dr. Calaway: It’s under Judy’s branch which includes Human Resources, but also Workforce Development. >> Chairman Weiss: Ah, now that makes sense. All right, thank you. 89 >> Ms. Sharp: And I could bring up $700 desk chairs, too, if that’s something that you want to talk about. >> Chairman Weiss: Thank you. >> Dr. Drummond: Chairman, the price of gas is getting so high… >> Chairman Weiss: Perhaps you think they should be issued for more staff members. >> Dr. Drummond: Trips to Chicago and trips to Topeka. >> Ms. Sharp: Will we ever get more explanation on, there are a couple in here that, page 60 at the very bottom, $150,000, ITPs for instruction to be determined. >> Mr. Perkins: Absolutely. That detail is not here, it’s being developed very specifically so that every computer will be listed and that will be in the final capital schedule. >> Ms. Sharp: Yeah. >> Mr. Perkins: And the Management Budget book. And that book, as well as this one, will be online. >> Ms. Sharp: Good. I think as long as we stick to PCs we’ll have to buy a whole bunch all the time. If we’d just move everything to Mac, we wouldn’t have to worry about that, that’s all. >> Dr. Calaway: If I might, though, to Trustee Sharp’s question, we are going right now, in fact, we had our meeting, just the other day, Terri and myself with Mary O’Sullivan, to kind of help us work through what dollar, because we budget for that item in bulk, and then divide it up amongst the branches and then amongst the areas within the 90 branches, and so we’re now in a process where we’ll identify exactly each place of equipment, and for instance would be with Trustee-elect Musil coming on, typically we’ll provide some technology for trustees, sometimes there’s a need as your equipment may run through its lifecycle, need to replace those, so we do that across the board within the entire institution, from both the academic as well as the administrative side. And we will literally line out, item out in the ITP process, each department, each piece of equipment that might be available, and we do that actually through the entire branch, and so we might designate, depending on what Trustee-elect Musil’s needs might be, if it might be a laptop, or he may have a computer at home that he would choose to use, but might need a printer, we kind of work through each of those individually. From the academic perspective, we’ll work through what might be necessary in Culinary or English, or some of our labs and the like. And we’ll actually designate that out in our final Budget Management book, so you would see every piece of equipment that’s purchased. And those are also available online, so if someone in the community would want to look at that, that’s all very transparent and open for someone to look at specifically. >> Ms. Sharp: I just worry about someone, random constituent, going on and looking at $700 desk chairs and little things like that, and when we’re doing riffs and we’re doing layoffs and we’re eliminating positions, I just worry about what that looks like. >> Dr. Calaway: Well, I mean, the reality of life is with 22,000 students coming through this campus, and a thousand-plus employees, on occasion a chair will break. We do try and buy heavy-duty chairs that get a long life because of the kind of heavy use that 91 they receive. You know, literally, 12, 14 hours a day for some of that equipment, but chairs do break and the like, and so we do budget, even though no one likes to see that happen, we do budget those kinds of things. >> Mr. Perkins: Yes, top criteria, both for that and remodeling, has been safety. >> Dr. Calaway: Right. >> Chairman Weiss: All right, do we have any other questions? >> Mr. Mitchelson: I have a comment I’d like to make. I’m so pleased to see the level of engagement on the part of every trustee in this budget workshop. I was on this Board when we didn’t have a workshop and it’s a wonderful institution. I hope you continue the practice after I’m no longer a trustee, everybody is really well informed and I think we’re doing a great job of sharing the leadership of the trustees on the JCCC Board and it’s just terrific the way this process works. Ten years ago if you’d given a test to the trustees, there were 6 at the time, on any of the questions in this, we wouldn’t have gotten a passing grade, I don’t think. And today, I think everybody would get an A, and so I’m just so impressed with the process and I hope we can keep it going. >> Dr. Calaway: Absolutely. >> Chairman Weiss: Unless the question is about lights. >> Ms. Sharp: Lights? Yeah, then we’re out of luck. >> Mr. Mitchelson: Yeah, if it’s not technical. >> Dr. Calaway: And we do encourage the questions, we also have a lot of questions that come from the community and we try and respond to those as effectively as we can. Sometimes folks don’t like the answers, but we always try and provide an honest 92 response and feedback, but Don’s done a great job with not only putting the planning materials on our website, but also as we move through the year, Don, Bob and others, the work that they do to then show the expenditures and the ways that we work through the other side of it through the year, so that information is all out on the Web and available if someone’s interested in that. >> Chairman Weiss: All right. >> Dr. Calaway: And we need, extending it out as far as we can, but I’ve had some who have had complaints about transparency – anyone who has any question about anything that has to do with this institution, it’s available in a host of different public forms. But I think this process is very good. It’s great for you, but it’s also really good for us so that we can also make sure that we’re prepared to answer questions and be responsive. >> Chairman Weiss: I’d just like to comment on the tremendous amount of difference that I see in these budget projections, especially on the expense side from ones that we might have gotten two or three years ago, where we were looking at, perhaps, a $30 million nugget that needed to be covered with mill levies that would be approaching 15 mills a year, and so this is dramatically different from that, and I have a lot of respect and compliments for the staff in bringing those in line with our new realities. So thank you so much. And, Trustee Drummond. >> Dr. Drummond: If I could make a comment, Trustee Stewart and I have had the opportunity to work very, very closely with Dr. Calaway and Don and Bob and Joe as we’ve implemented this new system across the organization, and large organization to 93 implement a new system in the short period of time that they’ve done it. They’ve done exceedingly well to educate our staff and to get our staff buy-in, that’s always the big part, to get them to buy into this, and then to come up with a work product that is comprehensive and I think, as good as this is, I just want to compliment them for their hard work and their commitment, and we meet with them once a month and we go through all these things and talk about it, ask them a lot of pointed questions and they’ve just done very, very well in developing this, and following the guidelines that you all set for them to do this, so I just want to say thank you to them for their excellent work. >> Mr. Perkins: Thank you. >> Chairman Weiss: If we have no other questions or comments, thank you, sir. >> Mr. Perkins: Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Chairman Weiss: And unless we have anything else to bring to the Board, I believe that we are finished for this evening, and… >> Dr. Calaway: If I might, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to just share our thanks on behalf of the executive leadership to Don and the whole team in Finance, they’ve done a great job, Trustee Drummond mentioned Joe Sopcich, who is just completing his Fulbright Exchange, and he’ll be back in just a few days, but to Don and all the team in the Finance area, thank you for your good work. Also, just a note in the Board packet, we do have Legal Counsel’s report, I think under tab 17, so just make note of that, that would be all I’d have. >> Chairman Weiss: OK. All right. (Meeting adjourned.) laboratory based dissertation Helene Fuld College of Nursing.